Glass _
Book-
-IIT!
X*
PROCEEDINGS
.1 GEXEBM COURT MJ1RTML,
HELD AT FORT INDEPENDENCE, (BOSTON HARBOR.^
FOR THE
Of
MAJOR CHARLES K. GARDNER.
OF TKZ THIJlt) nFeiMEJfT IKTANTHT.
UPON
CHARGES
OF
MISBEHAYIOR, COWARDICE IN THE FACE OF THE ENEMY.&c.
PREFERRED AGAINST HIM
BY MAJOR GENERAL B1PLET.
PRINTED.. ..18iC
'-
■'
PROCEEDINGS
OF
A GENERAL COl^RT MARTIAL,
fti't.I) AT FORT INDEPENDENCE, IIARBOlt OF BOSTON,
KY VIRTUE OF THE FOLLOWING ORDER.
« fiend Quarters, Castle island*
c26ih September, I8in.
« GENERAL ORDER.
w eneral Court Martial will convene at Fort
fndepeu "nee, on Wednesday, the 4th of October
next, for the trial of major Charles IC Gardner, of
the third regiment of Infantry. All the field officers
present in the department, with sufficient captains
to make the number of nine officers, will form the
Court.
Colonel M'NElL, President*
MEMBERS.
Lieut. Col. Eustis, Lieut. Col. Walbach,
Major Harris. Major Brooks,
C'ajlL M'DoWRLL, Capt. MANIGAtTXT,
Capt. Bennett, Capt. Craig.
Major Crane and Capt. Irvine, Supernumeraries.
1 ieut. James L. Edwards, of the eorpaof Artillery,
Judge tMToeate.
•' The Court will corivene at Fort Independentft-
on the day abovenientioned, will hear the charges,
the plea of the prisoner, and will then adjourn for
the purpose of convening the witnesses.
" By order of Major General Ripley.
(Signed) " II. F. EVANS,
" Lieut. Lt. Art. and Actg. Brig. tnspeelOi
"MILITARY DEPARTMENT, No. IF
" /feat! Quarters, Castle Island, bth Oct. 1815
« GENERAL ORDER.
'•Captain Thornton, of the Light Artillery, will
sit as member of the Court Martial which is to
convene to-day, in lieu of captain Manigault, who
is prevented attending by indisposition.
" By order of Major General Ripley.
(Signed) «« H. F. EVANS;
" Lieut. Lt. Art and Actg. Brig. Inspector '
OCTOBER 4, 1815.
s
The* court met pursuant to the above order,
PRESENT.
Colonel M'Neil, president ; iieut. col. Eustis,
lieut. col. Walbach, major Harris, major Brooks-
captain M 'Do well, captain Thornton, captain Ben-
nett, captain Craig, members ; lieutenant Edwards
judge advocate.
The prisoner being asked if he had any objec-
tion to the members named in the General Order.
implied, that no objection rested with him personally,
against any gentleman before him, but he objected
to the court proceeding to be organized for the trial
of his case, until he had the usual and necessar]
notice of the prosecution, He said he had received
no notice whatever, of any charge or accusation
against him — and lie, therefore, was not prepared to
take any step relative to his trial. The court,
overruled the prisoner's objection, and were duly
sworn. The prisoner then objected to hearing the
charges against him read, on the ground, that he-
had not been furnished with them previous to the
trial ; — and moved that the promulgation of them in
open court, might be postponed to some future-
period. The court acceded to his motion ; and
postponed the reading of them till another day. —
The prisoner requested, that during his trial, he
might be allowed to remain in Boston, he being at
that time restricted to Governor's Island. The
court decided, that it was proper to address a note-
to major general Ripley, soliciting him to permit
the prisoner to reside in town, during his frial. —
The general complied with the request of the court
The court then Adjourned to meet at Earle's
Coffee tiouse, in Boston, to-morrow morning at 9
o'clock.
OCTOBER 5, IS 15.
The court met pursuant to adjournment.
PRESENT.
Colonel M'Neil, president ; lieut. col. Eustis*
Lteut. col, Walbach, major Harris, major Brooks
captain McDowell, captain Thornton, captain Bert,
nctt, captain Craig, members ;• lieutenant Edwards,
judge advocate.
The prisoner being asked, if he was prepared to
hear the charges against him read, replied in the-
negative, on the ground that he had been furnished
with them but a few minutes since ; and requested
that another day might be assigned for reading them
The court postponed the reading of them till to
morrow ; and then the court adjourned till to-morrow'
morning at 9 o'clock.
OCTOKER <>, 1815.
The court met pursuant to adjournment.
PRESENT.
Colonel M'Neil, president; lieut. col. Eustis,
lieut. col. Walbach, major Harris, major Brooks,
captain M'Dowell, captain Thornton, captain Ben-
nett, captain Craig, members ; lieutenant Edwards,
judge advocate.
The prisoner being asked if he was read/ for
I, replied that he was not ; that he had, since the
idjournment of yesterday, received a letter from
major Fraser, aid-de-camp to general Brown, re-
quiring his presence at Brownsville or Plattsburg.
The letter was superscribed " Col. Gardner, Adjt.
Genl." The court decided that the trial should
proceed. The prisoner then requested that he
might be allowed the further indulgence of twenty-
four hours to prepare himself, to make objections
tive to the jurisdiction of the court. The court
granted him the further indulgence of another day
previous to his being arraigned. The judge advo-
cate laid before the court the correspondence
between major general Ripley and the prisoner,
w hich follows :
(COPY.)
Fort Uurrcn, October I, 181).
Sir — I do myself the honor to protest against
your proceedings, to constitute a general court
martial, in my case, on your own authority.
I belong to the staff of the commanding general
of the division. I came here with a leave of
absence, and on business with you, which was
unofficial. My station is announced in the Gene-
ral Order of the first of June last, duplicates of
which were sent to you, from the head quarters of
the division at Albany.
I wish to give you notice, that the court martial
for my case, which you have ordered to convene on
the 4th inst. and your arrest of me, on charges not
of immediate occurrence, and which admit of
reference to your commanding general, are illegal:
and that it will become the subject of an additional
accusation against you, if persisted in.
A trial I shall demand on the charges you prefer :
but it will be a trial instituted by the proper
authority.
I have the honor to he.
Sir, your most ohediem. servant,
(Signal) C. K. GARDNEH,
Maj. 3d Iaf. and Actg.Adjt Gen. North. Division
r« Jllaj. (,cn. Ripley, comag.
2d MilJ)ept . .A 'a t h ji. jlmn
(GOPY.)
Jftad Quarters, Boston, Octal/ei 1st, Ibij.
MaJOF. GaRONEIJ,
Sir — I received your note in the form of a
protest, against the proceedings I have instituted in
relation to myself, and have given it all the consi-
deration it requires-
Your views of martial law are erroneous— any
officer commanding a department, of as high a
grade as colonel, can arrest an inferior officer within
his command, and order a court martial on him.
When a deputy quarter master general wa§
arrested by a junior general, on the Niagara
frontier, he objected to the arrest as illegal, he
being an officer of the general staff. The court.,
however, decided that the arrest was a legal one;
and found, if I mistake not, that officer guilty,
among other allegations, of refusing to deliver up
his s\\ ird to the junior general's aid. Those
proceedings were approved by an old and accom*
plished soldier, major general Gaines. This pre-
cedent alone, is an answer to your protest. But,
in the present case, you are not at all in the staff.
There is, in the first place, no adjutant general
recognised by our law ; no authority from the war
department to g< neral officers to appoint one. —
You could not pretend it would be in my power to
appoint acting third lieutenants and ensigns of in-
fantry, when there are no such officers recognised by
law ; neither would it be in the power of the war
dcpartm< nt to appoint an acting lieutenant general.
Again — if adjutants general were authorised bv
taw, you were only appointed an acting adjutant
general ; now you must be fully sensible, this kind
of appointment continues only as long as the person,
acts. The moment he leaves head quarters, by
permission, or orders, it ceases. It only operated
while there, to authorise the person so appointed to
do the duties of the office, but gives no permanent
staff character. The moment he ceases to act, the
staff character is destroyed. No one ever supposed
it was necessary to issue an order to say, such an
officer was no longer acting in a staff capacity. —
The moment he ceases to perform those specific
duties, he resumes his rank in the line. I could
advert to numerous instances of this kind, but they
will at once occur to your recollection. From
these premises, you can easily draw the following
deductions :
1st. That it. was settled in the case of major C
that an officer attached to the general staff, was
subject to the arrest of an officer of superior rank
to him, like all other officers ; although the officer
making the arrest was not the general commanding.
2d. That whatever might be your situation, were
you now acting at the head quarters of major
general Brown, or in pursuance of his orders, that,
absent from there, you can be regarded only as the
major of the third infantry.
3d. That even if you were a regular appointed
adjutant general, yet when you came to this
department, unless you were on specific duties
you are subject to the orders of the general com
B
10
manding it, in the same manner as any inferior
officer.
It was at first my intention, not from a claim of.'
right on your part, but from motives of delicacy on
mine, to have referred your case either to the wai*
department, or to major general Broun ; but,
feeling sensible that you would, from your character,
possess a disposition to quibble, I found it the best
way to pursue the course I have.
The articles of war makes provision, that no
officer shall be held in arrest more than eight days,
or until a court martial can be assembled ; now, if
I had referred the subject to either the war de-
partment or major general Brown, it would require
at least sixty days to summon a court martial. In
which event, I have no doubt, you would have
cavilled, and said the arrest was unreasonable ; for it
was in my power to have summoned a court martial
at any time.
I now write you on an official subject. In
relation to subjects not connected with our public-
duties, it is my determination to have no written
correspondence with you,
I am, fce.
(Signed) EL. AV. RIPLEY,
Major General, Coradg. 2d Military Dept
N. B. — There is one view of the subject that I
think proper to place before you. By the law
fixing the military peace establishment, your staff
rank and duties were abolished, agreeably to the
opinion of the attorney general, sanctioned by the
president; you became nothing but major of the third
11
regiment. In this state of tilings, without any
staff duties or appointment, you issued an order,
purporting to be by order of major general Brown,
appointing yourself acting adjutant general of the
northern division. Even if there was such an
officer, what evidence is there that general Brown
ever appointed you ? Suppose that the situation of
adjutant and inspector general should become
vacant, and the secretary of war were to verbally
appoint colonel King to discharge those duties,
would an order from colonel King, signing it by
order of the secretary* of war, be binding on the
army *? — Or take it in a more familiar case : I have
a right to appoint a brigade inspector — I appointed
major Romayne, and promulgated it, in orders,
signed with my own hand. If, instead of that
course, major Romayne had issued an order for his
own appointment, and signed it with his name,
purporting to be by* order, could the army have
recognized him as one of myr staff ? — what evidence
would they have had that the appointment was not
recognised by me ? at this moment major general
Brown is commmunicating his orders through the
medium of his aid-de-camp.
(C0P\.)
Fort Warren, ith October, 1815.
SIR — I feel indebted to you for your condescen-
sion in addressing to me the arguments you have
drawn up, to oppose the grounds of my protest.-—
But the unfair advantage of giving me no notice of
them until this morning, in order that I might not
12
be prepared to obviate them before the convention
of the court, is but a continuation of the others,
which have been adopted since my arrest.
I think it proper here to state, that the whole case
of major C. is wrong in the application.
1st. His offence was the open disobedience and
defiance of your orders, and justified his arrest by
you, at the moment or on the evening that he com-
mitted it. My submission is proved by my being
here. My sword was delivered at your order.
2d. The court for his trial was instituted by
brigadier general Gaines commanding, on your
application. I expect to be allowed to be present
when the question of the jurisdiction of my case is
laid before the court
I think the president of the United States can be
justified under the law, in the provisional retention
of colonel Hayne, (who remains with permission at
Carlisle) and of general Parker, in the station of
adjutant and inspector general, though you have
laid down the position that no adjutant general is
recognised by our law, and that, neither would it
be in the power of the war department to appoint an
acting lieutenant general.
Nor do I admit your position with respect to any
officer appointed to act in a staff station, that the
moment he leaves head quarters, by permission, or
orders, it ceases.
And on your feeling sensible that I would, from
my character, <j possess a disposition to quibble,"
IS
a suppositious case, not of the subject in discus-
sion ; and on ydur supposing another case, which is
extraneous, and remarking, " In which event you
have no doubt I would have cavilled."
I have to reply, that these insults and reflections
on my supposed actions, are unbecoming an officer
of any command, and, inasmuch as they are ad-
dressed to an officer under the restrictions in which
I am — they are, what I will leave those who may
read, to determine. Those remarks were handed
to me in an open communication, not even folded
as a letter, by a clerk of the brigade inspector's
office.
I wish that this may also be laid before the court,
and that it may be drawn up, if you think proper,
in an additional charge.
I am, &c. &c.
(Signed) C. K. GARDNER,
Major 3d Inf. and Actg. Adjt. Ger
N. B. — The order of organization of the new
establishment, took effect the 15th of June. The
order of general Brown directing me to continue to
officiate as adjutant general, was dated the 1st of
June.
JWajor General Ripley, commanding, &c.
The prisoner then laid before the court Che
following order, relative to his arrest :
u
(COPY.)
MILITARY DEPARTMENT, No. 11.
Brigade Inspector' s Office, Head Quarters,
Castle Island, Sept.^Sth, 1815.
GENERAL ORDERS.
Major Charles K. Gardner, of the army, is placed
in arrest. He will be confined to Fort Warren,
and will have the liberty of Governor's Island. —
The charges will be filed at the war office, and a
court martial will be organized from them. The
commanding general being the prosecutor, and
wishing major Gardner every benefit of a fair trial,
prefers, from motives of delicacy, that the court
should be organized from that source. Major
Gardner will deliver his sword to major Romayne,
brigade inspector.
By order of major general Ripley.
(Signed) JAMES T. B. ROMAYNE,
Brigade Inspector.
And the court adjourned till tomorrow morn-
ing, at 9 o'clock.
OCTOBER 7, 1815.
The court met pursuant to adjournment.
PRESENT.
Colonel M'Neil, president ; lieut. col. Eustis;
lieut. col. Walbach, major Harris, major Brooks,
captain M'Dowcll, captain Thornton, captain Ben-
nett, captain Craig, members; lieutenant Edwards,
judge advocate.
The prisoner, on being asked if he was ready for
trial, addressing himself to the court, asked per-
mission, if he might proceed to obey the orders of
major general Brown, which he received the da\
previous, a copy of which follows :
(COPY.)
Brownsville, Sept. 18//;, 1815.
Dear Sir — Some time since I wrote you, di-
recting your being at Brownsville, on the 15th ;
not having arrived, he has ordered me to write
again, and still it is his desire that you repair to this
place with all possible dispatch. We leave here
about the first of October for Plattsburg. The
general's orders are, for you to join us at this post.
I thought, however, as well to mention that was
our route, in case you should not receive it in time.
We have just returned from Detroit, and made a
treaty with the Indians.
In haste, yours with respect, esteem, and friendship.
(Signed) D. FRASER,
Brigade Major and A D. Camp.
The court decided that the trial should proceed.
The prisoner asked leave to lay before the court a
general order, dated at Albany, 1st June, 1815,
from which it appeared, he was appointed by gen.
Brown, an acting adjutant general ; on this order
of the commanding general of the division, and the
orders from his aid-de-camp, just submitted to tin
court, and the prisoner's verbal statement in answer
to the argument of major general Ripley, of the 4th.
of October ; the prisoner submitted his objection
to the proceedings entered upon against him, by
the commanding general of the second department,
and to the trial instituted by his order, if an oiiicei
of the stall' of major general Brown, and therefore
16
objected that the jurisdiction of the court was insuj
ficient for his trial. The court was then cleared,
and on the question being put — " Is this court
competent to the trial of major Charles K. Gardner,
acting adjutant general ?" it was decided in the
affirmative. The court was then opened. The
judge advocate asked the prisoner, after informing
him of the decision of the court, whether he was
ready for trial. He then objected to col. M'Neil's
sitting in judgment on him, suggesting that colon?!
M'Neil had expressed an opinion prejudicial to him,
but appealed to him for the proof of it. Colonel
M'Neil declared that he had not formed, nor ex-
pressed any opinion relative to him — he did not
know the nature of the charges against him. The
court was then cleared to deliberate on the validity
of the prisoner's challenge. It was decided that
the challenge was not valid.
The prisoner was then arraigned on the follow-
ing charges preferred by major general Ripley.
Charge I. — Misbehavior in the face of the
enemy.
Specification 1. — For that the said Charles K,
Gardner, at Chippeway, in the province of Upper
Canada, on or about the 5th July, 1814, he then
and there being adjutant general of the American
forces, and his duty as such being to form and lead
the men into action, to animate them with his pre-
sence as chief of the staff, and arrange and direct
ihc whole staff duties of the field, he, the said
Charles K Gardner, did wholly omit and neglect
17
his duties aforesaid ; did not appear at all on the
field, when the troops were engaged, and where his
duty required him to be — but did then and there.
hide and conceal himsel£ behind a barn ; and when
a shell from the enemy's artillery burst upon the
barn, the said Gardner galloped to the rear, andTS|r-
ther from the enemy. 1
Specification 2. — For that the saiel Charles K.
Gardner, at a place called Lundy's-iane, in Upper
Canada, on or about the 25th July, 1814, he then
and there being- adjutant general of the American
forces, then engaged with the enemy, and his duty
then and there being, as chief of the staff, to form
and organize the troops ; to lead them into action,
and to direct and arrange all the staff duties and
proceedings of the field, did then and there wholly
omit to perform these duties, but did take up his
position in the rear of the American forces wholly
out of danger.
Specification 3. — For that the said Charles X.
Gardner, at a place called Fort Eric, in Upper Cana-
da, on or about the 17th September, 1814, he then
and there being adjutant general of the American
forces, as aforesaid, and it being his duty to assist,
to form, and to direct the troops, and to be with
them in the heat of the action, did take his position in
or near a ravine, between Fort Erie and the woods,
and wholly out of danger; and in this situation, when
directed by major general Brown, commander in
chief of the American fosces on that occasion, to
communicate certain orders to general Ripley, then
engaged with the enemy — he, the said Charles K.
c
18
Gardner, did employ another officer, to wit, captain
Newman S. Clark, to expose himself to the fire of
the enemy, and to communicate the said orders,
while he, the said Charles K. Gardner, took special
care to keep out of danger.
Charge II. — Cowardice in the face of the
enemy.
Specification 1. — For that the said Charles K.
Gardner, at Chippeway, in the province of Upper
Canada, on or about the 5th day of July last, he then
4lid there being adjutant general of the American
forces, and his duty as such, being to form and lead the
men into action, to animate them with his presence
as chief of the staff, and to arrange and direct the
whole staff duties of the field, he, the said Charles
K. Gardner, did wholly omit and neglect his duties
aforesaid ; — did not appear at all on the field, when
the troops were engaged, and where his duty re-
quired him to be ; — but did then and there hide and
conceal himself behind a barn ; — and when a shell
from the enemy's artillery burst upon the barn, the
said Gardner galloped to the rear, and farther from
the enemy.
Specification 2. — For that the said Charles K.
Gardner, at a place called Lundy's-lane, in Upper
Canada, on or about the 25th July, 1814, he then
and there being adjutant general of the American
forces, then engaged with the enemy, and his duty
then and there being, as chief of the staff, to form
and organize the troops, to lead them into action,
and to direct and arrange all the proceedings of the
field, did then and there wholly omit to perform
1»
ihese duties — but did take up his position in the
year of the American forces.
Specification 3. — For that the said Charles K.
Gardner, at a place called Fort Erie, in Upper Ca-
nada, on or about the 17th September, 1814, he
then and there being adjutant general of the Ame-
rican forces, as aforesaid, and it being his duty to
assist to form and direct the troops, and to be with
them in the heat of the action, did take his position
in a ravine, between Fort Erie and the woods, and
wholly out of danger — and in this situation, when
directed by major general Brown, commander in
chief of the American forces on that occasion, to
communicate certain orders to general Ripley, then
engaged with the enemy, did employ another offi-
cer to expose himself to the fire of the enemy, and
communicate the said orders, while he, the said
Charles K. Gardner, took special care to keep out
of danger.
Charge III — ^Neglect of duty in the face of
the enemy.
Specification 1. — For that the said Charles K.
Gardner, at Chippeway, in the province of Upper
Canada, on or about the 5th July last, he then and
there being adjutant general of the American forces,
and his duty as such, being to form and lead the
men into action, to animate them with his presence
as chief of the staff, and to arrange and direct the
whole staff duties of the field, he, the said Charles
K. Gardner, did wholly omit and neglect his duty
aforesaid ; and did not appear at all on the field, when
20
iac troops were engaged, and where his duly re-
quired him to be — but did, then and there, hide and
conceal himself behind a barn, and when a shell
from the enemy's artillery burst upon the barn, the
said Gardner galloped to the rear, and farther from
the enemy.
Specification 2. — For that the said Charles K.
Gardner, at a place called Lundy's-lane, in Upper
Canada, on or about the 25th July, 1814, he, then
and .there, being adjutant general of the American
forces, then engaged with the enemy, and his duty
then and there being, as chief of the staff, to form
and organize the troops, to lead them into action,
and to direct and arrange all the proceedings of the
field, did, then and there, wholly omit to perform
these duties — but did take up his position in the
~ear of the American forces, and wholly out of
danger.
Specification 2. — For that the said Charles K.
Gardner, at a place called Fort Erie, in Upper Ca-
nada, on or about the 17th September, 1814, he,
'hen and there, being adjutant general of the Ame-
rican forces, as aforesaid, and it being his duty to
orm and direct the troops, and be with them in the
heat of the action, did take his position in a ravine,
between Fort Erie and the woods, and wholly out
of danger — and in this situation, when directed by
major general Brown, commander in chief of the
American forces on that occasion, to communicate
certain orders to general Ripley, then engaged with
the enemy, did employ another officer to expose
himself to the lire of the enemy, and communicate
21
the said orders — while he, the said Charles K. Gard-
ner, took special care to keep out of danger.
Charge IV. — Conduct unbecoming an officer
and a gentleman.
Specification 1. — For that the said Charles K.
Gardner, at Boston, in the county of Suffolk, on or
about the 14th September, did address a note to
major general Ripley, a copy of which is hereunto
annexed, and instead of sending the said note by
some officer of the army, or some gentleman who
could receive an answer to it — did, then and there,
leave the same with the bar-keeper of a public
house, in said Boston, to be by him delivered to
said major general Ripley.
(COPY.)
Boston, Mth September, 1815.
Sir — I have within but a few days past, at
Philadelphia, and on enquiry at New York, heard
of abusive expressions, which you have applied to
me at Fort Erie, and elsewhere.
Why in so long a period I have not been inform-
ed of them before this, I can only impute it to th<
opinion of those who may have heard them, that
the malice of the expressions defeated themselves.
That you have used them principally before your
friends, but in frequent instances ; I now have all
the evidence which is requisite — though you have
taken me by the hand whenever occasion occurred,
as if nothing of that nature had happened. This
injury is entirely a personal one, and I conceive it.
24
wholly distinct from any difference which you may
have with any other officer.
The memorandum of an officer of distinction
who was present, that you " expressed a perfect
willingness to bring the difference to a personal
issue," and that you intended the expressions for
my ear, I have in my possession.
I now demand redress. My friend, a field offi-
cer of the line, requires an assurance of being safe
in a military point of view, when he will wait on
you. To this one point I request your reply.
I have the honor to be, sir,
Your very obedient servant,
(Signed) C. K. GARDNER.
Gen. Elkazer "W. Ripley.
I request the reply may be sent to the Exchange.
(Signed) €. K. G.
Specification 2. —After the said note was return-
ed, to wit : at Boston, aforesaid, although it was
publicly rumored in Boston, that the said Gardner
had come on for the purpose of fighting said major
general Ripley, and although in returning the said
note, major general Ripley had expressly stated the
reason why it was not received, was because it was
not communicated by said Gardner, through the
medium of some friend, in a gentlemanly way, or to
that effect ; he, the said Gardner, transmitted the
same again by captain Deacon, of the navy, who
then and there informed said Gardner, he could
not, from his engagements, appear as the friend of
said Gardner, but would! consent to bear the tetter
23
as a stranger, but to make no arrangements in con-,
sequence of it.
Specification 3. — For that the said Gardner, at
Boston, aforesaid, on or about the twentieth of Sep-
tember last, did suffer lieutenant Lee, of the army,
to inform him personally that general Ripley's
opinion of him was so low and contemptible that
he should think it degrading for any gentleman to
enter into a correspondence with him, the said Gard-
ner, without in any manner resenting it.
Specification 4. — For that the said Gardner, at
Boston, aforesaid, on or about the fourteenth day of
said September, did attempt to open a correspon-
dence with said general Ripley, in manner before
stated, when he, the said Gardner, had been called
by said major general Ripley, a scoundrel or cow-
ard, on the frontier, more than a year since ; which
he, the said Gardner, then and there well knew, but
of which he took no notice.
By command of Major General Ripley.
(Signed) REYNOLD M. KIRBY,
Capt. and Aid-de-Camp
Casfle Island, Oct. 4th, 1815.
SUPPLEMENTARY SPECIFICATION
Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman.
— For that the said Gardner, at Boston, aforesaid,
on or about the 25th September last, and while he
was under arrest by the order of major general
Ripley, did shew to colonel Aspinwall, late of the
army, a work in manuscript, purporting to be a
narrative of the last campaign, in which said Gard-
24
ner had grossly and outrageously censured the con-
duct of the said major general Kipley ; and he, the
said Gardner, did, then and there, instruct said As-
pinwall, to propose to major general Ripley, that ii
he should discharge the arrest of the said Gardner,
and let the business drop, he, the said Gardner, in
consideration thereof, would entirely suppress the
said work, and be quiescent.
Charge V. — Disrespectful conduct and Ian-
guage.
Specification 1. — For that the said Gardner, at a
place called Fort Warren, on the first day of Octo-
ber, 1815, did address a note to the said major
general Ripley, in the form of a protest against the
legality of the proceedings instituted by said major
general Ripley, against the said Gardner, and in the
said note, the said Gardner has the following para-
graph :
" I wish to give you notice, that the court martial
for my case, which you have ordered to convene
on the 4th Inst, and your arrest of me, on charges
not of immediate occurrence, and which admit of
reference to your commanding general, are illegal,
and that it will become the subject of an additional
accusation against you, if persisted in.''
The same being intended to threaten the said
major general Ripley, with an accusation, if he per-
sisted in doing his duty.
By command of Major General Ripley.
(Signed) REYNOLD M: KIRBY,
Capt und Aid-de-Can p
[1 '■:: ' 0 ■ ••'>. 1815.
23
To all of which charges and specifications, the
prisoner pleaded " Not Guilty." He, however,
admitted the fact of writing the letter of the 14th
September, 1315, referred to in the first specifica-
tion of the fourth charge ; he also admitted the fact
of writing the paragraph quoted from his protest,
and inserted in the first specification of the fifth
charge.
The prisoner presented to the court the follow-
ing note : '* Major Gardner alleges that he has had
but two days notice of the charges^ and asks of the
court, on the enormity of the accusations against
him, the time of three weeks, to prepare for trial,
except the evidence of colonel Aspinwall, about to
depart for Europe."
The court postponed the consideration of the
subject until Monday, the 9th inst. to which day-
it adjourned, to meet at 9 o'clock in the morning.
OCTOBER 9, 1815.
The court met pursuant to adjournment.
PRESENT,
Colonel M'Neil, president ; lieut. col. JEustis,
lieut. col. Walbach, major Harris, major Brooks,
captain M 'Do well, captain Thornton, captain Ben-
nett, captain Craig, members ; lieutenant Edwards,
judge advocate.
Colonel Aspinwall, late of the army, a witness on
the part of the prosecution, being sworn, says —
Colonel Gardner, after much desultory conversa-
tion, requested me to go to general Ripley, and, if
D
%6
possible, to effect his release from arrest. He
stated points, which it would be desirable to him.
that I should urge to general Kipley, to effect that
object — among these motives were the illegality of
the arrest, colonel Gardner being then the acting-
adjutant general of tine northern division ; another
was, that he had in his possession a manuscript
pamphlet, which detailed the events of the last cam-
paign on the Niagara frontier, in a manner very un-
favorable to general Ripley, which he was willing
to suppress, if the arrest was taken off, and colonel
Gardner permitted to go away . This pamphlet he
shewed me. These, as far as I can recollect,
formed the basis of the argument which he wished
me to use. Previously, however, to assenting to
n-o at all to general Ripley, I let him distinctly un-
derstand, that in this instance, I was equally indif-
ferent to both parties, influenced only by a sense oi
the evil consequences which I had for some time
perceived to flow from the quarrels of the army—
and that of course I should take such part of his
message as would tend to prevent another quarrel.
Under these impressions, I went to general Ripley,
at Fort Independence, and stated to him on my first
seeing him, that colonel Gardner, if general Rip-
ley would release him from his arrest, was willing
to drop every thing relative to their mutual differ
ence here and hereafter. This the general in the
most positive manner declined. I asked him if he
was aware that colonel Gardner was acting adjutant
general of the northern division ? He said, no. £
was, from his conversation, led to believe that i*
37
was useless to attempt to put a stop to the conti-
nuance of the difference, and here ceased the con-
versation for that time. Sometime afterwards, the
general asked me to walk into his office ; and in the
course of a desultory conversation, I mentioned to
him the existence of the aforementioned manu-
script. I did not urge it as a reason why, on that
account, he should withdraw colonel Gardner's
arrest, because I thought it would be indelicate in
me to do it, and inconsistent with the views with
which I had entered into the business ; which were
merely to prevent another quarrel. I stated it to
general Ripley, on my first seeing him, that I came
in the capacity of a mediator, and not a messenger
of colonel Gardner's particularly.
Question by the court. Did you read the manu-
script ?
Answer. I read a part of it, not the whole. —
Colonel Gardner read the greater part of it ; and I
did not pay much attention to it.
Question by the court. Did the manuscript pam-
phlet " grossly and outrageously censure the con-
duct of major general Ripley" ?
A. It assumed to be a narrative of facts, which
were highly injurious to the reputation of general
Ripley ; but it was not gross in manner.
Question by the court. You say, you delivered
such parts of the message from major Gardner to
general Ripley as would tend to prevent another
quarrel — what was the whole message ?
A. That is a great deal more than I could tell
n half a day ; amongst other suggestions mad<- fc
2j8
me by colonel Gardner, which I did not think pro-
per to communicate to general Ripley, was, that if
the general did not accede to the proposition for a
compromise , a publication ivoidd be made by colonel
Gardner, in the nature of a posting of general
llipley.
Question by the prosecution. Did you not ex-
pressly understand from major Gardner, that if
general Ripley would discharge the arrest, that in
consideration thereof, major Gardner on his part,
would suppress the pamphlet ?
A. Yes.
Question by the prisoner. The evil consequences
to the army of dissentions spoken of, were they not
warmly assented to by me ? and was not this pre
vieus to any suggestion of dropping all publica-
tions in print ?
A. Yes.
Question by the prisoner. Was not my elucida-
tion of every thing made to you, that you might
state what views you thought proper to effect the
object ; and stating, that I relied on you, or on
your sentiments of honor, to make none injurious
to me ?
A. Every thing which colonel Gardner ex-
pressed to me, seemed to conform to his sense cf
propriety ; he left me to act according to my own
sense of propriety, cautioning me generally not to
commit his honor.
The court then deliberated on the propriety of
planting the prisoner's request, to adjourn for three
weeks— which was not acceded to. They, how-
29
ever, agreed to allow the prisoner two weeks, td
prepare for his trial — and then adjourned to meet
at 9 o'clock, A. M. on the 24th inst.
OCTOBER 24, 1815.
The court met pursuant to adjournment.
PRESENT.
Colonel M 'Neil, president; lieut. col. Eustis,
lieut. col. Walbach, major Harris, captain M'Dow-
ell, captain Thornton, captain Bennett, captain
Craig, members ; major Crane and captain Irvine,
supernumeraries ; lieutenant Edwards, judge ad-
vocate.
A note was received from major Brooks, inform-
ing the court, that in consequence of the severe in-
disposition of his father, and of his attendance on
him being requisite, he wished to be excused from
sitting, and requested that one of the supernumera-
ries might fill his seat. Major Crane accordingly
took his seat, and with captain Irvine, was duly
sworn, and the proceedings of the court during the
whole session read to them.
The judge advocate laid before the court a letter
from captain John R. Bell, of the light artillery, in-
forming them, that the public service required his
presence at Castine, that he had not the means of
transportation thither, and requested that his evi-
dence might be taken by deposition.
The prisoner laid before the court the following
extract of a communication, addressed " Col. C. K.
Gardner., acting adjutant general, division of the
so
north> Boston, Massachusetts," and endorsed major
general Brown, dated :
Portsmouth, Ar. H. Oct. 18, 1815.
I at least two months since sent you an order to
join general Brown's staff, as adjutant general of the
division of the north.
(Signed) DONALD FRASER,
Brigade Major and A. D. C. to General Brown.
(Directed) C. K. Gardner, acting adjt. gen. D. N.
I certify on honor, that the above is a true copy
of the address, direction, date, and signature, and
of the extract of a letter received by me.
(Signed) C. K. GARDNER..
Acting Adjt. General.
He then presented to the court the following note t
On the ground of the recurrence to the orders of
major general Brown, by authority, from Ports-
mouth, of a date subsequent to general Brown's
knowlege of my arrest, I request (as general Brown
has not received any application from me) that the
court v ill deem it proper to postpone its proceed-
ings until an order may be received in the case,
conveying general Brown's wishes — say ten days,
(Signed) C. K. GARDNER,
Acting Adjt. General.
The court decided that it was inexpedient to
postpone its proceedings.
Captain Newman S. Clarke, of the sixth regi-
ment infantry, a witness on the part of the prosecu-
tor, being sworn, says —
I saw colonel Gardner on the 17th September
1614, near the battery commonly called No. 3} one
Si
of the enemies batteries on their extreme right, op-
posite Fort Erie. Col. Gardner enquired of me
for general Ripley — I pointed out the direction in
which I last saw the general, and he observed that he
might possibly not be able to find the general, and
desired me to convey an order to him ; he imme-
diately left me, after communicating the order, and
from the direction that he took, I concluded that he
was about to return to the rear. I did not see coh
Gardner again during the action, to my recollec-
tion.
Question by the court. Did you belong to gen,
Ripley's staff on the 17th September, 1814 ?
A. Yes.
Question by the court. What situation did you
hold in the staff ?
A. Brigade major.
Question by the prosecution. When you saw
colonel Gardner, was it within musket range of the:
enemy ?
A. I hardly think it was within point blank
musket shot of the enemy ; the firing that was
heard at this time, appeared to be incessant, particu-
larly on the left ; the musket balls that fell among
our column appeared to have been spent. This
column was advancing on the enemy, and we had
not at that time fired a musket.
Question by the court. When colonel Gardner
gave you the order for general Ripley, was he calm
and collected, or did he f^hibit my appearance ol
dismay 9
32
A. Colonel Gardner, when he made the enquiries
Off me, made them in a very hasty manner, and ap-
peared to be very impatient. I don't reeollect the
particular color of his lace, whether it was white
or red, but he appeared to be anxious that some
other person should carry the order.
Question by the court. Was there any more
danger in seeking general Ripley in the direction
you pointed out, than in coming to the place where
you met him, colonel Gardner, or than in returning
to the rear ?
A. I found general Ripley in about five or ten
minutes after I left colonel Gardner. There was
much difficulty in getting to the general, on account
of the under brush. The lire was much more se~
vere than it was when I received the order from
colonel Gardner.
Question by the court. Did you make any reply
to colonel Gardner, after he requested you to con-
ey the order to general Ripley — if so, what ?
A. I believe I did make a reply, but don't re-
member the particular words ; / hesitated about
carrying the order.
Question by the court. Why did you hesitate ?
A. Because I felt an impropriety in carrying
the orders of the commander in chief.
Question by the prisoner. What was the order
given you to general Ripley ?
A. The substance of., the order which he re-
quested me to convey to general Ripley, was, that
general Ripley should take the general direction \
the troops.
S3
Question by the prisoner. Did you not start im-
mediately to carry the order ?
A. After colonel Gardner left me, I carried the
order.
Question by the prisoner. Did you, (or did you
not) express any objection to carry the order ?
A. I have answered that question as nearly as
I could, already.
Question by the prisoner. How long was it after
the first engagement, and after general Miller's
column had advanced, when the reserve entered the
wood ?
A. The reserve was posted in Fort Erie, until
the firing commenced, and was ordered to go into
the action, but by some want of intelligence in
communicating the order, the reserve took a direc-
tion different to what was intended, as was under-
stood at the time, and received a second order to
enter the wood ; the exact number of minutes in
doing this would be difficult for me to say, as I was
employed in communicating orders from one end
of the column to the other, but should not suppose
it exceeded twenty-five minutes, from the first firing
in the woods.
Question by the prisoner. What conversation
(if any) have you had with general Ripley, relative
ro the subject of your testimony, or with his staff ?
The judge advocate objected to the witness an-
swering the question, it being irrelevant to the
case.
The court decided that it was an improper ques-
tion to be put to the witness.
F.
34
Question by the court. Was col. C. K. Gardner,
adjutant general of general Brown's division, on the
17th September, 1814?
A. Yes.
Question by the court. What was the distance,
from the place where colonel Gardner asked you to
carry the order, to that where you found and deli^
vered the order to general Ripley ?
A. I cannot say exactly ; I suppose it could
not exceed 10, 15, 20, or 25 rods.
Question by the court. Did you think at the
moment that colonel Gardner directed you to carry
the order because he was afraid to carry it himself ?
A. I do not know that he was, but my impres-
sion was, that he was so ; he was evidently endea^
^iQring to find general Ripley.
And then the court adjourned till to-morrow
morning at nine o'clock,.
OCTOBER 25, 1815.
The court met pursuant to adjournment.
PIIESENT.
Colonel M'Neil, president; lieut. col. Eustis,
iieut. col. Walbach, major Crane, major Harris,
captain M'Dowell, captain Thornton, captain Ben^
nett, captain Craig, members ; captain Irvine, su-
pernumerary ; lieut. Edwards, judge advocate.
The prisoner suggested to take the sense of the
court, whether questions to witnesses are proper,
which require his impressions relative to what, does
not enter int£ any specification against him, and re~
35
opectfully suggested, that the record might be
altered.
The court decided that the record should remain
as it was.
The prisoner requested the sense and deci-
sion of the court, on what he considered of impor-
tance to his defence, whether he should be per-
mitted to examine the witnesses, or bring collu-
sion between his prosecutor and any witness, or as
to improper means taken to give impressions inju-
rious to him in conversations with any witness.
The court decided that the prisoner should pro-
duce evidence to invalidate the testimony on the
part of the prosecution, but not until he entered
into his defence.
Lieutenant Elisha Brimhall, late of the ninth re-
giment infantry, a witness on the part of the prose-
cution, being sworn, says—
At the battle of Chippeway, I was wounded in
the commencement of the engagement, before we
had got into line — while we were marching over the
bridge, which obliged me to retire into the rear.—
I went into a house on our left, as we marched down
towards the enemy ; as the enemy's artillery were
directed that way, two of their shot went through
the house ; I then left the house and went into a
barn, about 30 or 40 rods in the rear— while I was
in the barn and binding up my wound, a shell pass-
ed through the roof of the barn and exploded ; I
went to the door, intending to go still farther to the
rear; I saw colonel Gardner on horseback, with a
36
number of Indians and teamsters about him ; at the
time I went to the door, they were all retiring far-
ther to the rear.
Question by the prosecution. Did you at the bat-
tle of Chippeway, see colonel Gardner within mus-
ket range of the enemy ?
A. I did not.
Question by the prosecution. When you saw
col. Gardner retiring to the rear, was he in haste ?
A. He appeared to be.
Question by the prosecution. What were your
impressions at the time you saw the prisoner, when
he was galloping to the rear ?
The prisoner wished the decision of the court,
as to whether questions, might be asked witnesses
to obtain their impressions, relative to what is not
specified against him ?
The court decided that no irrelevant question
should be put to the witnesses ; but that questions
should be asked relative to the impressions of wit-
nessesy which do relate to the case of the prisoner.
The witness then answered — to get out of the
reach of the enemy's shot, as at that time their ar-
tillery was directed that way.
Question by the prosecution. Were you near
enough to the prisoner to observe his countenance ?
A. I was.
Question by the prosecution. Did he appear to be
under the influence of fear ?
A. I could not tell exactly ; that was my im-
pression at the time.
Question by the court. At the time you saw
colonel Gardner retiring from the barn, were our
troops closely engaged with the enemy ?
A. They were.
Question by the court. How long did colonel
Gardner continue in your sight, and which course
did he take ?
A. He went towards the second brigade, which
was still in farther in the rear ; I should say he con-
tinued in my sight from one to two minutes.
Question by the court. Where was gen. Brown
at that time ?
A. I do not know.
Question by the court. How Jong did you re-
main m the barn ?
A. Two or three minutes.
Question by the com- < hat distance was the
enemy from the barn t uie time the shell exploded ?
A. I cannot tell exactly ; I should say from 60
to 80
Question by the court. Had the engagement be-
come stationary, or was the enemy retreating?
A. The engagement was stationary at the time.
Question by the prisoner. What house did you
first enter near the creek ?
A. The white house ; I don't recollect who
owned it.
Question by the prisoner. Was this white house
in front of the creek ?
A. It was, I believe.
Question by the prisoner. Were you, or were
you not, in the rear of the barn, or at the rear sill
of the opening, when I came up ?
A. I did not see the prisoner come up.
Question by the prisoner. Was the barn opeii^
and a free passage through ?
A. There was a passage through by doors, the
doors at that time open.
Question by the prisoner. Were you slightly
wounded, or in what manner ?
A. I was reported slightly wounded, but it
proved to be very severe ; I was wounded in the
face or head.
Question by the prisoner. After the time that
the shell you speak of burst, and when you came
to the rear of the barn, did you, or did you not, see
me pass to the end of the barn, in the road ?
A. I do not recollect ; I saw the prisoner pass
up the road that was towards the rear.
Question by the prisoner. Was there any shot
.fly'ing from ine enemy, at the time you saw me
gallop towards the second brigade ?
A. There was.
Question by the prisoner. Are you certain,
whether you did not see me approach from the di-
rection of the creek to the left ?
4. I did not.
Question by the court. How do you know tha
our troops were closely engaged — could you sec
them ?
A. I could not see them — I knew they were en
gaged by the sound of the musquetry.
Question by the prisoner. Have you, or have yoi.
not) been promised by general Ripley, bis interest in
ir of your bring continued in the army p
The judge advocate objected to this question be
ing put, on the ground of its irrelevancy.
The court decided that it should not be put to
the witness in the present stage of the trial.
Lieutenant Horace Story, of the corps of engi-
neers, and acting adjutant to that corps, a witness,
on the part of the prosecution, being duly sworn,
says—
I saw colonel Gardner the afternoon of the sortie
from Fort Erie, in the skirts of the woods, between
battery No. 3, and battery No. 2, a British battery,
in company with general Brown, and suite, colonel
Jones, captain Austin, and lieutenant Armstrong ;
I had gone up with captain Kirby, who complained
of being exhausted with running, and at his request
to carry an order from general Brown to general
Ripley, by order of colonel M'Kee ; I afterwards
remained near the person of general Brown ; I con-
versed with colonel Gardner, 10 or 15 minutes, in
front of the third battery, (the enemy's;) general
Brown was not stationary at any particular place,
but moved from the right to the left, as occasion
required ; during the whole time that I was with
colonel Gardner, and I never was more than forty
or fifty yards distant from him, to my recollection,
he appeared perfectly cool and collected.
Question by the prosecution. Were you not on
the point of going into action yourself with a mus-
ket ? and what did colonel Gardner say to you ?
A. While in front of the third battery, in com-
pany with colonel Gardner, I had stopped a soklic*
*0
returning with a British musket, which he had ta-
ken prize, and was carrying into camp ; I sent him
back again, and took his musket from him. I af-
terwards said to colonel Gardner — I had a good
mind to go into the battery : he told me, it was
very loolish, as I had no command, and advised
me to stay where I was — I accordingly took his
advice.
Question by the Prosecution. Were you in dan-
ger when with colonel Gardner, and at the time he
spoke to you ?
A. At that time I think the firing did not reach
us ; I, however, advanced towards the third batte-
ry, until the explosion of the magazine, by lieut.
Riddle, and the falling of the timber, warned me to
retire ; this was the only time I recollect to have
lost sight of colonel Gardner. When I joined him
again, he had accompanied general Brown a little
on our right ; a very severe fire had began in that
quarter, I presume from a reinforcement of the
enemy — the musket balls, as I passed towards col.
Gardner, flew over my head and struck in the
grass, and continued to do so after I had come up
with him ; I spoke at intervals to colonel Gardner,
a number of tim md he always appeared the
same, perfectly collected.
Question by the prosecution. Was there a ravine
near the skirts Oi the wood, which you have men^
tioned ?
A. There was a ravine at about 150 yards from
the skirts of the wood, in the cleared ground to-
wards Fort Erie.
u
Question by the court. Do you recollect colonel
Gardner being sent by general Brown, with orders
to general Ripley ?
A. I know nothing of it ; I stood in front of
the third battery, sending the men back, as they
came out occasionally, looking at general Brown,
and his suite ; so that an order might have been
given, without my knowing any thing about it.
Question by the court. Where was the column
of reserve, during the time you were with colonel
Gardner ?
A. The column of reserve had proceeded up
the ravine, at the time I was overtaken by captain
Kirby, and found general Brown in company with
his suite, in the skirts of the wood.
Question by the prisoner. When you saw me
near battery No. 3, of the enemy, and at other
times, was I in front of the general situation of
general Brown ?
A. When we were in front of the third battery,
general Brown was, 1 think, about 50 feet on our
right, and I should judge about fifteen or twenty
feet in our rear.
Brevet brigadier general J. Miller y a witness for
the prosecution, of the fifth regiment infantry-, be-
ing sworn, sayn —
I know nothing of the charges against colonel
Gardner.
Question by the prosecutor. Were you at the
battle of Bridgwater, and if so, did you see colonel
Gardner in the engagement ?
r
A. I was in the battle of Bridgwater, but don't
recollect to have seen colonel Gardner in the ac-
tion.
Question by the prosecution. Were you in the
action of the 17th September, 1814, near Fort Erie,
and did you see colonel Gardner in that action ?
A. I was in that action ; I don't recollect l#
fyave seen colonel Gardner in the action.
The prisoner admitted that he was not engaged
with the enemy, at the battle of Bridgwater ; that
he was sick, and confined to his bed through the
day, and had been ill for a number of days, and
was unable then to do justice to himself, in the dis
charge of his duties in action.
The court adjourned, to meet to-morrow at nine
o'clock.
OCTOBER 26, 1815.
The court met pursuant to adjournment.
PRESENT.
Colonel M'Neil, president ; lieut. col. Eustis.
lieut. col. Walbach, major Crane, major Harris,
captain M'Dowell, captain Thornton, captain Ben
nett, captain Craig, members ; captain Irvine, su-
pernumerary ; lieut. Edwards, judge advocate.
Colonel Jacob Hindmari, of the corps of artillery.,
a witness on the part of the prosecution, being
sworn, says —
I have no knowlege of the conduct of colone**
Gardner, at the battle of Chippewa/.
Question by the prosecutor. Were you at the
battle of Chippeway f
A. I was on the field at the commencement,
but took no part until about the end.
Question by the prosecution. Did you in that ac-
tion see colonel Gardner ?
A. I did not.
Question by the court. What was your com-
mand at the battle of Chippeway ?
A. The artillery.
Question by the court. Did you receive any or-
ders during the action ?
A. Previous to the action, I received orders
from general Brown personally, and in the action,
orders from general Scott, and lastly from general
Brown personally.
Question by the prisoner. Were you with the
heavy pieces of artillery, on the bank of the Niagara,
and did you then see me ride up and say, that the
artillery should advance, without giving it as an
order ?
A. Sometimes I was with the heavy pieces of
artillery, but have no knowlege of such a request
being made by colonel Gardner.
Question by the prosecution. Did not colonel
Gardner, on the morning after the battle of Bridg-
water, deliver you an order ?
A. I am not certain that he did.
Colonel Hindman, was then requested to testify,
as to any knowlege he might possess relative to the
fourth specification of the fourth charge?
Question by the prosecution. Did you, while on
the Niagara frontier, ever hear the epithets, coward
or scoundrel, applied to colonel Gardner by general
Ripley ?
A. Not personally to colonel Gardner ; he has
been called by general Ripley, in my presence, by
such epithets.
Question by the prisoner. Did you ever hear gen.
Ripley say, that he made them to me ? and did you
ever understand that I knew of these expressions i
A. I have heard general Ripley say, that he haft
pronounced colonel Gardner, to his face, or within
his hearing — coward, or scoundrel, or words to
that effect ; but have no knowlege of colonel Gard-
ner's being further acquainted widi this declara-
tion ; my impression was, that he (col. Gardner)
had not heard of such expressions from any other
source, at the time I heard general Ripley make use
of those expressions.
Question by the prisoner. Can you recollect who
was present at any time, when you have heard these
expressions?
A. I cannot recollect the persons on the Niaga-
ra frontier ; but at Washington, to the best of my
recollection, lieut. col. Seiden, major M'Donald,
(of general Ripley's staff,) and, I think, Dr. Bro
naugh.
Question by the prisoner. At what time did you
hear these remarks from general Ripley ?
A. In August, September, and October, last
year, when we were at Fort Eric ; I cannot say
precisely.
45
Question by the prisoner. Was it subsequent to
general Ripley's return into Erie from furlough ?
A. I cannot tell with certainty.
Major Thomas Harrison, of the late forty-second
regiment of infantry, a witness on the part of the
prosecution, being sworn, says —
I was at the battle of Chippeway, on the 5th of
July, 1814 ; I did not see colonel Gardner in the
action — but as we were marching on the field, I
saw general Brown ride up to general Scott, and I
presume he gave him some order ; I do not know
the amount of the order.
Major Benjamin Watson, of the sixth infantry, a
witness on the part of the prosecution, being duly
sworn, says —
I saw colonel Gardner but once at the battle of
Chippeway ; he was then enquiring for general
Ripley's brigade, as he stated, for the purpose of
communicating an order ; I knew nothing of his
getting behind a barn.
Question by the prosecution. At what period of
the action did you see colonel Gardner ?
A. It was while the enemy were retreating.
The court adjourned, to meet to-morrow morn-
ing, at nine o'clock, in consequence of the absence
of witnesses,
46
OCTOBEB 27, 1815,
The court met pursuant to adjournment.
PRESENT.
Colonel M'Neil, president ; lieut. col. Eust'is\
lieut. col. Walbach, major Crane, major Harris.,
captain M'Dowell, captain Thornton, captain Ben-
nett, captain Craig, members ; captain Irvine, su-
pernumerary ; lieut. Edwards, judge advocate.
Captain Newman S. Clarke, of the sixth regi-
ment, was again called to testify relative to the pri-
soner's conduct at the battle of Bridgwater, (or
Lundy's Lane.)
Question by the prosecution. Did you not sec
colonel Gardner, on the evening of the battle of
Bridgwater, near the field of action ?
A. I did.
Question by the prosecutor. Was he not on
horseback, and in rear of the line, and out of danger ?
A. He was on horseback, and in rear of the
line, 100 or 150 yards, I should say — and out of
danger. I don't know that he was not in the action
previous to this.
Question by the prosecution. Did col. Gardner
appear, when you did see him, in the exercise of his
duties as a staff officer, or was he unemployed ?
A. He was unemployed ; his horse was stand-
ing still. I don't know whether he was ordered to
remain there or not.
Question by the prisoner. Do you recollect whe-
ther any musket shot were striking the trees, and the
road, in which we stood together, at that moment ?
A. I don't know that there were any musket
shot ; I heard some rattling in the bushes — I con-
eluded that they were musket or grape ; they were
not far from us. I supposed at the time they were
spent shot ; there was very little firing at the time.
Question by the prisoner. Do you recollect of
my advancing on the road, and meeting the adju-
tant of the twenty-fifth, who was complaining un-
der a severe wound ?
A. Yes.
Question by the prosecution* How far did colonel
Gardner advance ?
A. I should think not more than five rods ?
Question by the prosecution. Did you consider
that there was any danger from the fire of the ene-
my, in the position you then occupied ?
A. I did not.
Captain Clarke was then examined relative to his
knowlege of the prisoner's conduct at the battle of
Chippeway.
Question by the prosecution. Did you see coL
Gardner at the battle of Chippeway ?
A. I did.
Question by the prosecution. Was he not with
the second brigade during a part of the action, and
during that time was he at all exposed to the fire
of the enemy ?
A. At the time colonel Gardner came to the
second brigade, there were cannon shot passed over
the line of the second brigade ; two shot passed
through the second brigade — I don't know that it
was precisely at the time colonel Gardner cam*.
r-rTat way, but near that time. Colonel Gardner
48
came to the second brigade, I suppose, to give or-
ders, as the brigade immediately put itself in mo-
tion. Colonel Gardner forded the creek with the
brigade, and marched with the column, until it en-
tered the woods — the column was not engaged ;
the enemy were retiring as the column came into
the field. If I recollect right, colonel Gardner left
the column soon after it entered the wood, for the
purpose of ascertaining the position of general Scott
— don't recollect whether colonel Gardner returned
again or not, but believe he did.
Question by the prisoner. From what direction
did I come to the second brigade ?
A. I suppose colonel Gardner came from the
field of action, or from the bridge — he came from
that direction ; the bridge was near the scene of
action.
Question by the prisoner. Do you recollect of
my going down the creek from the brigade, and re-
joining it, as it was crossing the creek ?
A. I do not.
Question by the prisoner. Did this creek form an
acute angle with the river ? and was it, or was it
not, difficult to ford, at the point where the brigade
forded it ?
A. Yes, it formed nearly an acute angle % it was
very difficult to ford it at the point where the bri-
gade forded it.
Question by the prosecution. Was not general
Brown in the rear of general Scott's brigade, and
in the direction from which colonel Gardner came,
at the time he first joined your brigade ?
A. I don't know where general Brown was.
49
Lieut, col. Nathan Toiuson, of the regiment light *
artillery, a witness for the prosecution, being sworn,
says —
At the battle of Chippeway, I don*t recollect to
have seen colonel Gardner at all. At the action of
Lundy's Lane, I saw colonel Gardner ; he was
communicating orders to some officers at the foot
of the hill ; 'twras at some distance from where the
action was. I do not recollect to have seen him at
any other time near the field.
Question by the prosecution. At what period of
the action did you see colonel Gardner ; and was
he at that time out of danger ?
A. It was after the enemy's batteries had been
carried — I believe there was no firing at the time.
Question by the prisoner. Do you conceive that
from the manner in which the action at Chippeway
commenced, that my duties were to form, and lead,
the men into action ?
A. I do not, under the circumstances which
that action commenced.
Question by the prosecution. Would not the du-
ties of colonel Gardner, as adjutant general and
chief of the staff, require his presence with the
troops composing the army, during an action ?
A. I do think it the duty of an adjutant general
to be present, and very active at the time of an ac-
tion. I will state to the court, the reasons why I
think it was not necessary for colonel Gardner to
form the troops at the battle of Chippeway. The
brigade of general Scott, which fought the battle.
50
was already formed for drill, as they marched oft'
for battle — of course it was not necessary for col.
Gardner to form them.
Captain Reynold M. Kirby, of the corps of artil-
lery, and aid-de-camp to general Ripley, a witness
for the prosecution, being sworn, says —
I received a sealed note, in the hand writing of col.
Gardner, directed to general Ripley, which I knew,
from having seen his hand writing repeatedly. I
received it from the bar-keeper of Earle's coffee-
house ; I gave it to general Ripley — he shewed me
the note very soon afterwards, that evening — and
it was the same in purport as the note in the speci-
fication. He directed me to return it to colonel
Gardner. I called at the Exchange coffee-house,
to enquire for colonel Gardner, supposing that he
lodged there — the bar-keeper immediately spoke,
and said that if I had any note for col. Gardner, he
would receive it, and see that col. Gardner had it.
I enquired where colonel Gardner was, and found
him, and gave him the note myself. There was an
endorsement on the back of the note I gave colonel
Gardner, in the hand writing of general Ripley.
Question by the prisoner. Did you hand the note,
with the endorsement, to me, as a message from
general Ripley ?
A. I gave it to colonel Gardner from general
Ripley.
Question by the prisoner. Do you know that I
left the note with the bar-keeper at this (Earle's)
house, and how far do vou know of it 9
51
A. I received the note from the bar-keeper ;
from whom he received it, I don't know.
The court adjourned until to-morrow morning,
at nine o'clock.
octoekr 28, 1815.
The court met pursuant to adjournment.
PRESENT.
Colonel M'Neil, president ; lieut. col. Eustis,
lieut, col. Walbach, major Crane, major Harris,
captain M'Dowell, captain Thornton, captain Ben-
nett, captain Craig, members ; captain Irvine, su-
pernumerary ; lieut. Edwards, judge advocate.
Captain David Deacon, of the United States navy,
a witness for the prosecution, being sworn, says —
Some time in the month of September, colonel
Gardner came to me, and mentioned the circum-
stance of his wishing to communicate with general
Ripley, and mentioned the circumstance of a letter
being left in the hotel by him — that general Ripley
received it, but had returned it, objecting to the
manner in which it had been handed to him. Col.
Gardner then mentioned to me, that his friend was
not here, and asked me if I had any objection to
handing general Ripley a sealed letter, to do away
the objection that he had made previous. I told
colonel Gardner, that I was very much engaged ;
I could not enter fully in the business — but, that if
he would write on the envelope, the reason or cause
of my coming, which was to do away the former
objection, I would consent to carry it. Colonel
52
Gardner expressed to me, at this time, that he
would not call on me at the time, but that he wish-
ed to do away the objection immediately — that was
his only object in calling on me. I accordingly de-
livered the letter to general Ripley ; he read the
envelope, and accepted the letter — our business
there ended, after some explanation relative to the
envelope.
Question by the prosecution. Did you read the
letter which you bore from colonel Gardner ?
A. No. Colonel Gardner read the outlines to
me ; I don't recollect the particular parts of it. —
The envelope I read two or three times over.
Question by the prosecution. Was the letter the
same in purport with the letter recited in the speci-
fication ?
A. I cannot say — there are some parts that ap-
pear similar.
The prisoner admitted that it was the same.
Question by the prisoner. Was it, or was it not,
our understanding, that the favor you were so good
as to do for me, was merely to deliver the letter, and
ascertain its acceptance ?
A. Yes.
Question by the prisoner. Will you state the ac-
ceptance understood, and whether the objection was
admitted to be done away ?
A. The letter was accepted from my hands — I
cannot say whether the objection was done away.
Question by the prisoner. Was the substance of
the envelope you speak of, the same with this ? — -
: which follows) :
53
Boston, nth Sept. 1815.
Sir — That this letter, signed by me, may be-
come entitled to be the subject of your considera-
tion, I have requested captain Deacon, a master
and commander in the United States navy, to hand
it to you.
As the objection, agreeably to your endorsement,
was only to the disrespect of the manner in w hich
the letter was communicated, (by the keeper of the
tavern at which you put up, to the hands of your
aid, and under seal, into your hands,) and not to
the letter itself, I now anticipate your speedy con
sideration and reply.
I have the honor to be,
"With very respectful intention,
Sir, your obedient servant,
(Signed) C. K. GARDNER.
Major General Ribley.
A. I believe it was the same.
The judge advocate informed the court, that
several witnesses were absent — the following is a
list of their names ; annexed to which is the sub-
stance of their testimony — and respectfully submit-
ted to the court, whether their evidence was, or was
not, of importance.
Captain /. R. Bel/, to support fourth specifica-
tion of fourth charge.
Captain A*. .V. Hall, (at New York,) to prove
what gen. Ripley said to major Gardner, as stated
in fourth specification of fourth charge.
Major Crooker, to testify that he never saw
prisoner in action.
5i
Lieut, col. Snelling, to prove general Ripley's re-
marks, as stated in the fourth specification of fourth
charge.
Colonel Leavenworth, to testify his not seeing
the prisoner in action.
Colonel G. M. Brooke, same evidence as colonel
Leavenworth.
Major Marston, prisoner's position at Niagara.
Major Orne, same testimony as major Marston.
Major Harrison, to corroborate the testimony of
lieutenant Brimhall.
The prisoner addressed the court in the follow-
ing words :
I wish the evidence of major Marston, to prove
that after giving orders to general Ripley to advance
with the second brigade, I left it to see the situa-
tion of the action ; went down the creek, which
ran for some distance nearly parallel with the river;
that the barn was connected with the creek on
which it stood, by high board fences, and prevent-
ed the possibility of my passing in front of the
barn; that after I had observed the engagement
•Vom the road which passes the barn, on the bank
of the river, I returned to the twenty-first, (the only
regiment taken by general Ripley) found it passing
the creek in a mode not the most expeditious, and
made a suggestion to major Marston, or some cap-
tain of the twenty -first regiment, which was adopt.
ed, and which gave it expedition ; that I continued
>o lead that regiment of the brigade, agreeably to
mv instructions, until the enem\ retreated — that
my conduct and language was such as to animate
the men of this brigade.
I wish to obtain in evidence, the impressions of
colonel Brooke, major Marston, and all the others
who are absent, to rebut the impressions of lieut.
Brimhall, late in the army, and captain Clarke, late
brigade major to general Ripley.
I wish the evidence of lieut. Lee, aid- de-camp to
my prosecutor, to prove that he used no such ex-
pressions as those alleged in the third specification
of the fourth charge, when he called upon me with
a verbal message from major general Ripley ; that
what he did say, I answered as coming from general
Ripley, and to state my verbal reply.
I wish also the deposition of general Gaines, and
the evidence of major Worth, with respect to my
general character, whether they saw me in the ac-
tion, and their present conviction of my conduct.
I wish major Orne's evidence, that he never saw
me, during the action of Lundy's-lane, (as it is
called by my prosecutor. )
Very respectfully,
(Signed) C. K. jSARDNEK,
Major anil Acting Adjt. General.
Major Azor Orne, of the late twenty. first regi-
ment, and late assistant inspector general, a witness
on the part of the prosecution, being sworn to tes-
tify as to the prisoner's conduct at the battle of
Bridge water, savs —
All that I can state about colonel Gardner is this :
I was ordered to remain in camp by general Brown,
with general Porte, to see to the defence of the
encampment ; and when I returned from the camp
towards the field, I met colonel Gardner near the
field of action, near Mrs. Wilson's ; he was giving
directions relative to prisoners, (those taken with
general Riall,) which fell within my department —
I observed to colonel Gardner at the time, that he
had taken my duty out of my hands, or to that
amount ; and I could dispense with his services any
farther. I do not recollect of there being any firing
at that time, and don't know which way colonel
Gardner went.
The court adjourned till Tuesday, the 31st of
October inst. at 9 o'clock, A. M. in order to afford
(he judge advocate and the prisoner, an opportunity
of making arrangements relative to the obtaining of
testimony by deposition.
OCTOIJKR 31, 1815.
The court met pursuant to adjournment.
PRESENT.
Colonel M'Neil, president ; lieut. col. Eustis,
lieut. col. Walbach, major Crane, major Harris,
captain M'Dowell, captain Thornton, captain Ben-
nett, captain Craig, members ; captain Irvine, su.
pernumerary ; lieut. Edwards, judge advocate.
Major Harris informed the judge advocate, that
bince the adjournment of the court on the 28th,
he had received a commission which gave him the
brevet rank of lieutenant colonel, from the 25th of
July, 1814. He accordingly took his seat agree;?
blv to his rank.
57
It being a desirable object to obtain the remain-
ing evidence on both sides, with as much expedi-
tion as possible, the judge advocate and the prison-
er, agreed to propound the subjoined questions to
witnesses at a distance, in order to obtain their
written instead of oral testimony.
ON THE PAitT OF THE PROSECUTION.
To captain Bell. — Did not colonel Gardner, at
Albany, last winter, tell you that general Ripley had
done every thing, on the Niagara frontier, to pick
a quarrel with him ?
To captain Hall. — Did not general Ripley al-
ways pronounce colonel Gardner, a coward, at Fort
Erie ? and was not this done in presence ot the
general staff1, and without disguise, or wish for con-
cealment ?
To lieut. col. Snelling. — The same question as
to captain Hall.
To colonel I,eavemvorth, colonel Brooke, major
Ci'ooker, and lieut. col. Jones. — Did you ever see
major Gardner expose himself to the musketry of
the enemy ?
To major Marston. — Where was the position of
colonel Gardner, during die battle of Niagara, and
what was his conduct ?
THE PRISONER WISHES
Lieut, col. Snelling — To state all he knows of
the fourth charge and specifications.
Major Marston — To state what he saw of colonel
Gardner's conduct at Chippeway.
Major general Gaines. — 1st. Did you ever see
colonel Gardner in action ?
2nd. What was your conviction, and now is your
conviction, of his conduct at such time ?
3rd. Have you had an opportunity of becoming-
acquainted with his sentiments as a man of honor'1
How great an opportunity ?
4th. What is your opinion and conviction of his
character as a man of honor ?
Of major Worth. — The same questions as to
general Gaines.
ON THE PART OF THE PROSECUTION.
To major general Wilkinson. — 1st. Did you not
say, in the hearing of colonel Gardner, last winter,
at Albany, that he was a scoundrel and coward*
and did he resent it in any way ?
2nd. What was the affair between col. Gardner
and lieutenant Johnson,, of the old sixth ; and was
it not considered disgraceful to colonel Gardner ?
and did not all the officers of the sixth, petition to
the secretary of war, to have him struck from the
rolls of the army ?
ON THE PART OF THE PRISONER.
The third and fourth specifications, and also thc
second question to general Wilkinson, to the lieut.
Johnson referred to, (I suppose) now a merchant,
at Pittsburg, (Penn.) The second question of the
prosecutor to general Wilkinson, also to said capt.
Johnson.
To general Wilkinson —
1. Did you ever state that you did so ?
2. Did you ever state this ?
The prisoner declared that the presence of
lieutenant Lee, was necessary to his defence, and
£9
requested that he might be summoned to appear
before the court.
The court adjourned till to-morrow morning, at
9 o'clock.
NOVEMBER 1, 1 815.
The court met pursuant to adjournment.
PRESENT.
Colonel M'Neil, president ; lieut. col. Eustis,
lieut. col. Harris, lieut. col. Walbach, major Crane,
captain M'Dowell, captain Thornton, captain Ben-
nett, captain Craig, members ; captain Irvine, su-
pernumerary ; lieut. Edwards, judge advocate.
Major general Jacob Brown, commanding the
northern division of the United States army, a wit-
ness for the prisoner, being sworn, says —
I can state to the court, at the battle of Chippe-
way, colonel Gardner was with me, in advance of
Street's creek, previous to my having certainly as-
certained that a general engagement would take
place. Previous to this point of time, I had order-
ed general Porter, with his volunteers, to break off
for the rear of our general encampment, march to
the left through the woods, out of view, and en-
deavor to get between the enemy's light parties
and their main camp, on the Chippeway. This
being the state of the troops, and of the orders
given, I was in advance of Street's creek, with my
staff, of which number colonel Gardner was one,
and present. I directed the advance picket to fall
back to a log-house, near Mrs. Street's, in hopes
60
that the light parties of the enemy would elose up,
So that general Porter, with his command, could
place himself in their rear, and cut them off from
their main camp. The American picket fell back
accordingly, and the light part of the enemy in the
strait, advanced ; when some firing took place be-
tween the pickets of the two armies. At this mo-
ment, I heard a heavy firing on our extreme left,
in the wood, and from the report, I knew that Por-
ter had not advanced sufficiently for to take ground
to the right, so as to enclose the enemy's light par-
ties ; from which, I inferred, that the enemy had
advanced in force, and from the dust that was rising
near the Chippeway, I was induced to believe that
the enemy were advancing with their whole force ;
I so stated to those around me, and immediately
mounted, with my staff, rode rapidly to genera!
Scott's tent, he being the commanding officer of
the first brigade, to which was attached Towson's
company of artillery, and ordered him to advance
with his command. At the moment I gave him
the order, he was standing before his tent, his horse
prepared for him to mount, and his command turn-
ing out for drill ; the order was obeyed with great
promptness and ability. Within ten minutes from
this time, and I most clearly believe within fifteen,
I ordered colonel Gardner, we then being within
the space occupied as a cump, and but a few rods
in front of the second line, which general Ripley
commanded, to go to general Ripley, and order
him to advance by the left, through the skirt of the
woods, and if possible, gain a position in rear of
61
the enemy's right flank, whilst he was engaged with
Seott in front ; and I ordered colonel Gardner to
remain with general Ripley, and his command, and
to aid in conducting his column to the ground, as I
had ordered. I saw no more of colonel Gardner,
until I passed colonel Jcssup, who commanded the
left battalion of Scott's brigade, at which moment,
Scott's command and the British army, were en-
gaged in close and desperate conflict ; having spo •
ken with colonel Jessup, I inclined still further to
the left, in hopes of meeting the head of general
Ripley's command ; going a k\v rods, I observed
colonel Gardner in the bushes, called to him — he
was on horseback, in advance of the troops, led on
by general Ripley ; he promptly informed me that
general Ripley was near, with his command — and
would in a fewT minutes, be able to close with the
enemy, as I had directed. Before, however, gen.
Ripley's command came up, Scott's command,
aided by the deep and deadly wounds that general
Porter's volunteers had inflicted, defeated and drove
in the enemy in «;reat confusion.
Relative to the prisoner's conduct at the battle of
Niagara, (or Lundy's-lane) the witness says :
I saw colonel Gardner, previous to the action of
Niagara ; he was very unwell, and part of the time
in his tent. I saw him lying down on his beddine;
and he complained of being unwell. I did not ex-
pect much from colonel Gardner in the battle of
Niagara ; I considered him a sick man.
Scott had been ordered to advance with his bri-
gade, Towson's artillery, and major Harris, with
GZ
the mounted regular and militia dragoons. After
they had been some time in ad vane, I heard a very-
considerable firing, from which 1 inferred, that
Scott had met the enemy. My staff were imme-
diately assembled around me, with the exception
of major Jones and major Wood, who had advanc-
ed with Scott ; I ordered colonel Gardner, with
my aids, to put the troops that were in camp, on
the march as promptly as possible ; all the regu-
lars to proceed directly on to Scott's support ; the
militia, under general Porter, to advance to the old
work of the enemy, on the east, or lower side of the
Chippeway creek. Having confided to colonel
Gardner, as chief of my staff, the order for all the
troops in camp, to advance — I rode as rapidly as
possible, with colonel M'Ree, towards the scene of
action ; the first distinct information that I recol-
lect, was from colonel Jones, that I met near the
Chippeway. He informed me, that Scott was en-
gaged with the enemy, and that they appeared in
force. I instantly ordered him to proceed, and or-
der up gen. Porter with his volunteers also.
Colonel Gardner, was within the field of action ;
he communicated with my aids, and I considered
his conduct correct and honorable under the cir-
cumstances. 1 did not give him personally, any
order on the field,
During mv absence, for the recovery of my
wound, after the battle of the Falls, col. Gardner
joined me for the recovery of his health, by per-
mission of general Gaines. .After being with me
for a few d .... he asked permission to return, which
65
I refused ; he repeated his application differ v
Times, which was as often refused.
Relative to the prisoner's conduct at the sortie
from Fort Erie, the witness further states :
The first colonel Gardner knew of the sortie ot
the 17th of September, was on the morning of that
day. I had, the evening- previous, intimated to col.
Jones, my intentions, as his tent was near mine,
and I had to make use of him in my arrangements.
When 1 informed colonel Gardner of the plan oi
the sortie, I put him upon the performance of cer-
tain duties, to which he attended with zeal and
cheerfulness ; though he did appear to me, to be
hurt, that I had not sooner informed him of my in-
tentions. When sufficient time had elapsed, as I
supposed, for general Porter to gain a little path
way, that led from the rear of Fort Erie, past the
front of the enemy's right, being anxious to see him,
I passed out upon this path way, to meet him, with
five or six soldiers, and my aid, iieut. Armstrong ;
as we were passing out, at this moment colonel
Gardner hastily came up to me,, with a view of pro-
ceeding out in company ; as I did not consider air.
additional aid could be useful for such a purpose, I
ordered him within the lines of our camp, to attend
to duties that I deemed important.
After general Porter had turned the enemy**
right, and general Miller had' pierced his line, be-
tween battery No. 3, and battery No. 2, colonel
Gardner I saw near me, as I was standing in front
of battery No. 3, and sent him with an order to
general Ripley. This was before the reserve under
64
general Ripley had advanced across the ravine, be-
tween the enemy's position and ours. As general
Ripley and his command, were entering the ene-
my's lines, near battery No. 3, I again sent colonel
Gardner to general Ripley, to order him to move
with his command, as rapidly as possible, to sup-
port general Miller on our extreme right.
Question by the prisoner. Do you conceive col.
Gardner, during his service with you, ever to have
misbehaved in view of the enemy ?
A. I do not.
Question by the prisoner. Ever to have faultered
from the execution of his duty ?
A. I do not.
Question by the prisoner. And what do you con-
ceive his conduct to have been ?
A. Good.
Question by the prisoner. As commanding gen-
eral, with the knowlege you have had of my ability,
were you satisfied with the discharge of my duties,
during the campaign ?
A. ' Yes.
Question by the prisoner. Did you ever trust me.
with the responsibility of a command, during the
campaign on the Niagara? and in such case, what
was the manner in which you observed me to exe-
. ute the trust ?
,/. Observing on the morning of the third of
July, that the troops destined to land above Fort
Erie, at the same time with those that landed below,
\Vould not gain their position in time to secure the
troops in the garrison — I ordered colonel Gardner
65
to take command of that part of the second brigade
that crossed from Black-rock, to form them on the
beach as they landed, and march up to Scott's right,
where I would give him further orders — upon his
advancing with his command, I ordered him to
penetrate the woods, in the rear of Fort Erie, and
place his right flank upon the Lake shore, above
the Fort, so as to completely enclose it ; and if
possible, secure all it contained. This duty he
performed with zeal and gallantry.
Question by the prisoner. Was, or was not, this
the only instance of your charging me with a com-
mand ?
A. I have no recollection of ever having given
colonel Gardner, during the campaign, any other
command.
Question by the prisoner. Did you ever hear
general Ripley, pronounce me the epithets men-
tioned in the fourth specification of fourth charge ?
A. No, I never did — I never heard a word of
the kind.
Question by the prisoner. Did you ever hear
that he had pronounced me so ? and when did you
first hear of it ?
A. The first I ever heard of it, was at Buffalo,
on my way to Detroit.
Question by the prisoner. Will the witness
please to state, whether he has ever heard my cou-
rage doubted, and when first ?
A. At the city of Washington, sometime to-
wards the close of last April. I have no recollcc-
66
tion of ever hearing his courage doubted until I
was at Washington.
Question by the prisoner. Did you see a brevet
commission signed by the president, and secretary
of war, which was sent me ?
A. Colonel Gardner was in company with me,
and shewed me an envelope, which he observed,
contained a brevet.
Question by the prisoner. Did I return it ?
A. I have no recollection of having taken the
trouble to look at it ; but I read a letter that he had
drafted to.the war department, declining its accept-
ance.
Question by the prisoner. Will the witness
please to state, whether he considered the brevet as
voluntarily sent me, as far as respects any agency
or wishes of mine ?
A. Colonel Gardner never expressed to me, a
wish to have a brevet ; but on the contrary, desired
that he might not be noticed in that way.
The court adjourned till to-morrow morning, at
9 o'clock.
NOVEMBER 2, 1845.
The court met pursuant to adjournment.
PRESENT.
Colonel M'Neil, president ; lieut. col. Eustis,
lieut. col. Harris, lieut. col. Walbach, major Crane,
captain M'Dowcll, captain Thornton, captain Ben-
nett, captain Craig, members ; captain Irvine, su-
pernumerary; lieutenant Edwards, judge advocate
67
Lieut, col. Jones, of the corps of artillery, a wit-
ness on the part of the prosecution, being sworn,
says —
I remember but one occasion that afforded me a
distinct opportunity of observing the manner of
colonel Gardner, when engaged with the enemy —
it was on the 17th of September, (the day of the
sortie from Fort Erie,) I was with him, some dis-
tance between the ravine and the enemy's battery
No. 3. I particularly observed his activity in car-
rying some orders, I presume from general Brown.
All that I saw and observed that day, gave me not
the smallest idea, but the conduct of colonel Gard-
ner, was cool and deliberate, and becoming an offi-
cer— he was within the wood, certainly within
musket shot of the enemy. I do not recollect of
seeing him at all in a ravine.
Question by the prisoner. From your situation
with general Brown, could I have received an order
from him, in the ravine, without your knowlege ?
A. I did not see general Brown in the ravine
at all.
Question by the prisoner. Were you under the
necessity of issuing orders from the adjutant gene-
ral's office, at Queenston, in consequence of my
illness ?
A. Yes — on the 24th of July, the day before
the battle of Niagara.
Question by the prisoner. Did you ever hear
general Ripley, pronounce me the epithets scoun-
drel and coward ?
A. No.
68
Question by the prisoner. Did you ever hear that
jae had done so ; and when first did yon hear of it •?
A. Yes. The first I heard oi' it, was at Sack-
ctt's harbor, in the month of May or June last — ■
but it was very different ,rom the information given
me by colonel Snelling, and much more to the pre-
judice of colonel Gardner, when I saw him at Buf-
falo, on my way to Detroit, in July last.
Question by the prisoner. Have you ever com-
municated it to me ?
A. I have not ; because this is the first time I
have seen colonel Gardner, since I heard of the
charge.
The prisoner requested that general Miller, and
captain Clarke, witnesses in his behalf, might be
examined, before the evidence was closed on the
part of the prosecution, as they were anxious to
leave town, the public service requiring that they
should be with their respective commands.
The request was granted by the court.
Brevet brigadier general James Miller, of the
fifth regiment infantry, a witness for the prisoner,
was examined.
Question by the prisoner. Did you ever hear
general Ripley, pronounce me the epithets scoun-
drel and coward ?
A. Not that I recollect.
Question by the prisoner. Did you ever hcr.r that
he had done so ; and when first did you hear of it ?
A. I never heard that he had done so, until
lately ; and whether it was at Buftalo, or Albany,
I don't recollect.
69
Question by the prisoner. Did you ever hear my
courage doubted — if so, when ?
A. I have no recollection of ever hearing his
courage doubted, until since the war.
Question by the prisoner. Will you please to
state how long you commanded the old sixth regi-
ment ?
A. I commanded it about a year.
Question by the prisoner. What was my stand-
ing with the officers of that regiment, with respect
to the manner in which they spoke of me ?
A. I don't recollect to have ever heard the re-
putation of colonel Gardner, called in question, by
any officer of that regiment.
Captain Newman S. Clarke, a witness for the
prisoner, was then examined.
Question by the prisoner. Have you ever heard
general Ripley speak injuriously of me ?
A. I don't recollect to have ever heard him.
Question by the prisoner. When did you hear
that he had done so ?
A. I heard at Fort Erie, that general Ripley
had said some things injurious to him — I don't re-
collect at what time, or from whom. It was, I
think, previous to the sortie of the 17th September,
1814.
The court adjourned, to meet again on the 10th
of January, 1816, at 10 o'clock, A. M. in order to
afford sufficient time to obtain the testimony of ab-
sent witnesses, particularly from major Marston
at Detroit.
70
JANUARY 10, 1816.
The court met pursuant to adjournment.
PRESENT.
Colonel M'Neil. president; lieut. col. Eustis,
lieut. col. Harris, lieut. col. Walbach, major Crane,
captain M'Dowell, captain Thornton, captain Ben-
nett, captain Craig, members ; captain Irvine, su-
pernumerary ; lieut. Edwards, judge advocate.
A letter, of which the following is a copy, was
iaid before the court.
Washington City, 2d January, 1&16.
Sir — lam directed by major general Ripley, to
desire you to defer the trial of major Gardner, for
two days, provided general R. does not arrive in
Boston by the 10th of January.
Most respectfully,
R. M. KIRBY,
A. D. Camp
To Colonel M-Neil.
In consequence of the above letter, and the ab-
sence of the prosecutor, the court adjourned till to-
morrow morning, at 9 o'clock.
JANUARY 11, 1816.
The court met pursuant to adjournment.
PRESENT
Colonel M'Neil, president ; lieut. col. Eustis,
lieut. col. Harris, lieut. col. Walbach, major Crane,
captain M'Dowell, captain Thornton, captain Ben-
nett, captain Craig, members ; captain Irvine, su-
pernumerary ; lieut. Edwards, judge advocate.
71
In consequence of the absence of the prosecutor,
the court adjourned till to-morrow morning, at 9
o'clock.
JANUARY 12, 1816.
The court met pursuant to adjournment.
PRESENT.
Colonel M'Neil, president ; lieut. col. Eustis,
lieut. col. Harris, lieut. col. Walbach, major Crane,
captain M'Dowell, captain Thornton, captain Ben-
lyejfct, captain Craig, members ; captain Irvine, su-
pernumerary ; lieut. Edwards, judge advocate.
The judge advocate laid before the court, the
following depositions.
Copy of a letter from captain Hezekiah Johnson, late of
the second regiment United States infantry, to the
judge advocate.
Pittsburg, (Penn.J Nov. 2Qth, 1815.
Sir — I have this moment had the honor to re-
ceive your letter of the 7th inst. My answers are
annexed to the subjoined transcript of the interro-
gatories, of the prosecution and the prisoner.
* " Question by the prosecution. What was the
affair between major Gardner, (then a subaltern) and
lieutenant Johnson, of the old sixth, and was it not
considered disgraceful to Gardner ? and did not all
the officers of the sixth, petition to the secretary of
war, to have him struck from the rolls of the army ?"
* Thi question vas at 6rst addressed lo general Wilkinson,
and th, prisoner requested it might be copied, and sent to capt.
Johnson.
1"l
A. I do not know, nor did I ever hear of any
such affair, between major Gardner, (then a subal-
tern) and lieutenant Johnson, of the old sixth; nor
did I know there was a lieut. Johnson, of the old
sixth, until the interrogatory came before me.
2d. The affair, and the idea of disgrace, were
equally unknown to me.
3d. 1 never before heard of a petition to have
tlie struck from the rolls of the army.
Question by the prisoner. Did you ever state
this ? (alluding to the above question on the part of
the prosecution.)
A. Never.
(Signed) H. JOHNSON.
The above answer to the foregoing questions, was
sworn and subscribed to before me, Philip Gilland,
esq. a justice of the peace, in and for Alleghany
county, and state of Pennsylvania, this 20th day of
November, 181i>.
(Signed) P. GILLAND.
Copy of a letter from captain N. N. Hall, to the judge
advocate.
Fort Columbus, Harbor of JVeio York, 22d ffav. 1815.
To the following question, to wit — " Did not
general Ripley, always pronounce major Gardner,
a coward, at Fort Erie, and was not this done in
presence of the general staff, and without disguise
or wish for concealment ?" I answer, that general
Ripley did pronounce major Gardner, (then colonel
Gardner) a coward, at Fort Erie ; I cannot posi-
tively say that it was in presence of the general
staff, but it was said openly before officers of the
army, and I feel confident from the public manner
in which the remarks were made, that the general
had no wish to disguise or conceal them.
(Signed) N. N. HALL,
Captain Corps Artillery.
THIRD MILITARY DEPARTMENT.
Head Quarters, J\'eu< York.
On the twenty-second day of Novemher, 1815,
personally appeared before me, Henry Wheaton,
judge advocate of the northern division of the army,
captain Nath'l N. Hall, of the corps of artillery, and
made solemn oath to the truth of the foregoing
deposition, by him subscribed and reduced to
writing.
(Signed) HENRY WHEATON,
Army Judge AdvocHte.
THIRD MILITARY DEPARTMENT.
Head Quarters, New York.
On this tenth day of November, A. D. 1815,
before me, Henry Wheaton, judge advocate of the
northern division, personally appeared lieut. col..
Josiah Snelling, of the sixth regiment of infantry,
and made solemn oath to the truth of the deposi-
tion hereunto annexed, by him subscribed and re-
duced to writing.
(Sinned) HENRY WHEATON,
Army Judge Advocate
((ueslion by the jrrosccution, to lieut col. Snelling.
Did not general Ripley always pronounce colonel
Gardner, a coward, at Fort Erie, and was not this
done in the presence of the general staff, and with-
out disguise or wish for concealment ?
K
A. Sometime in the month of September, 1814"
while the left division of the northern army was in
the entrenched camp near Fort Erie, I heard major
general Ripley say, that colonel C. K. Gardner,,
was a liar, a scoundrel, and a coward ; it was in a
tent belonging to some officer of the twenty-first
regiment, whose name I do not recollect ; and
there were present several officers, but none of the
general staff, except myself. I asked the general
if he Mas aware, that he would be bound in honor,
if called upon, to light a gentleman to whom he
had applied such epithets ; he replied, that if coL
Gardner thought proper to call upon him, he would
fight him, without hesitation. I then observed, that
I believed colonel Gardner was in the next tent,
and might possibly have heard him ; he replied, he
hoped he had — his remarks were meant for his ear«
At this distance of time, I cannot be positive that I
have quoted the words correctly, but of their truth
in substance I am certain. I afterwards looked in-
to the next tent, and saw colonel Gardner on the
bed, lying on his face, and apparently asleep. That
was the only time I heard major general Ripley,
pronounce colonel Gardner a coward.
In reply to the request of colonel Gardner, rela-
tive to the fourth charge, first, second, third, fourth,
and supplementary specifications, lieut. colonel
Snelling, testifies as follows :
At the time of the conversation above referred to.
I was but little acquainted with colonel Gardner,
and felt reluctant to report to him expressions
which I knew must lead to unpleasant consequences.
75
particularly as I was on terms of friendship, at least
of civility, with the other party ; but afterwards,
finding that it was the subject of general conversa-
tion, I mentioned it to an officer, who I thought would
repeat it to the colonel ; and on the presumption that
he did, I must confess my opinion of colonel Gard-
ner's courage, was much lessened, and I did not
hesitate to express it. I have since, however, as-
certained, that the information was never given
him, and have not failed to do him justice in that
particular.
Early in the month of September last, I met coh
Gardner, in New York ; he stated to me, that on
his way from the city of Washington, he had seen
colonel Mitchell, of the artillery, who first informed
him of the reports in circulation, injurious to his
reputation ; that since his arrival in the city, he had
conversed with colonel Hindman on the subject,,
who had referred him to me for further information,
I then told him what I have stated in reply to the
question of the prosecutor ; he expressed his re-
gret that he should have remained so long in igno-
rance of the slander, but observed, that notwith-
standing the late period at which it had come to his
knowlege, he should not hesitate to call major
general Ripley to a personal account for it ; the
next day, he requested me to accompany him to
Boston ; this I at first declined, but I afterwards
consented to join him there in a few days. Colonel
Gardner proceeded to Boston, and I shortly after
received a letter from him. which induced me ty
7C>
follow. On my arrival, I found him a prisoner at
Governor's island.
Of the first specification of the fourth charge, I
know nothing.
Of the second specification, I know nothing, but
from the information of colonel Gardner.
Of the third specification, I can say nothing from
my personal knowlege ; but I have been informed
that such an attempt was made to shift the quarrel
from major general Ripley, to third lieutenant Lee
of the artillery. Colonel Gardner viewing lieut.
Lee as the messenger of general Ripley, with whom
a discussion was then pending, did not resent it.
On the fourth specification, I can only say, that
it is not within my knowlege that colonel Gardner
had ever been informed that he was called a scoun-
drel, liar, and coward, or that his character had
ever been called in question by general Ripley, or
any other individual, until he had heard of it from
me, in the month of September last.
On the supplementary specification, it is in my
power to testify with regard to a certain manuscript,
purporting to be a history of the last campaign,
11 that I have perused it ;" it was sometime in my
possession, and that the object of it was to ridicule
the bombastic, inflated, and ridiculous publications
which have recently made their appearance in the
Port Folio, and some eastern newspapers, under
the title of biographical sketches, &c. and that so
far from major general Ripley's being " grossly and
outrageously censured," the work was written (so
far as I am able to judge) with a clue regard to his-
77
toric truth, and can be supported by evidence
before a military tribunal.
(Signed) J. SXELLING.
Lieut Col. -6th U. S. Regiment Infantry.
GENERAL WILKINSON'S DEPOSITION.
Question A. {by the prosecution.) Did you say
in the hearing of major (then colonel) Gardner, last
winter at Albany, that he was a scoundrel and
coward, and did he resent it in any way ?
Question by the prisoner. Did you ever state
ihat you did so ? (alluding to the above question
on the part of the prosecution, marked A.)
Question B. (by the prosecution. ) What was the
affair between major Gardner (then a subaltern) and
lieutenant Johnson of the old sixth ? and was it not
considered disgraceful to Gardner ? and did not all
the officers of the sixth petition to the secretary at
war to have him struck off the rolls of the army?
Question by the prisoner. Did you ever state
this ? (alluding to the question by the prosecution
marked B.)
Answer of James Wilkinson, late a major general in Hie
service of the United Stales, to tlie above questions,
transmitted to lieutenant James L. Edwards, judge
advocate.
To question A. he answers, that he does not re-
collect having said to major Charles K. Gardner,
he was "a scoundrel or a coward ;" but believing
from his general character, and the information re-
ceived from Dr. William M. Ross,* stated below,
* The court ordered that the letter of doctor Ross, should
be struck from the record, as not being considered evidence
78
that he was the one, and the other ; he has given
the opinion frequently, and without reserve ; and
this reply will satisfy the interrogatory by the pri-
soner.
To the question B. he answers, he has no recol-
lection of the facts stated.
Personally appeared before me, James Wilkinson,
who having been duly sworn, on the holy evan-
gelists of Almighty God, deposeth as follows : that
the answers by him given to the preceding ques-
tions, are just and true, to the best of his knowlege
and recollection.
(Signed) JAS. WILKINSON.
Sworn and subscribed before me, the 15th No-
vember, 1815.
(Signed) PETER BAYNTON,
One of (he Justices of tfyq Peace in and for the
county ofPliiladelphia.
CAPTAIN BELL'S DEPOSITION.
Question by the prosecution. Did not major Gard-
ner, at Albany, last winter, tell you that general
Ripley had done every thing on the Niagara fron-
tier to pick a quarrel with him ?
A. At Albany and Troy, last winter, I had
frequent conversations with general Ripley and
major Charles K. Gardner, on the subjects of con-
troversy between several officers of the Niagara
army : colonel Gardner appeared not to be insensi-
ble of the dislike entertained by general Ripley to-
ward him — but the exact expressions used by coh
Gardner arc not recollected.
(Signed) JOHN R. BELL,
Captain Lt. Artillery.
79
Hancock, ss. Commonwealth of Massachust
Town of Castinc, Nov. Ut/i, A. D. 1815.
Personally appeared the within named John R„
Bell, and made solemn oath, that the answer to the
question contained in the Avithin, is true, according'
to the best of his knowlege and belief.
Before me,
(Signed) B. HALL,
Justice of the Peace in and for the said county of Hancotk-
Copy of a letter from colonel G. M. Brooke, to the
judge advocate.
Norfolk, October 15th, 1815.
Sir — In answer to your question (by the prose-
cution,) " Did you ever see major Gardner expose
himself to the musketry of the enemy ?" I say, to
the best of my recollection, I never did.
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
(Signed) GEO. M. BROOKE.
Colonel U. S. A
This answer was sworn to on oath, by colonel
Geo. M. Brooke, this 11th day of Nov. 1815.
(Signed) WILLIAM B. LAMB,
An Alderman of the borough of Norfolk
(COPY.)
Socket? s Harbor, November, 1815.
On my return from Kingston, Upper Canada, if
had the honor to receive the interrogatories of major
Charles K. Gardner, of the third regiment U. States
infantry, communicated by you as judge advocate
to the court, before which he appears to be accused.
To the first interrogatory, "have you ever seen
me in action?" it affords me pleasure to state, that
so
I saw major Charles K. Gardner, then of the 25th
regiment of infantry, frequently during- the action of
the lith November, 1813, Chrysler's Field. The
period I particularly allude to, was just before and
during the retreat of our troops before the enemy,
when I observed major Gardner making great and
zealous exertions to re-form and correct the line of
his regiment ; I say his regiment, because he ap
peared to me, to be in the absolute command of it.
I did not see lieut. col. Cutting, and was ignorant
of the arrival of general (then colonel) Gaines,
pilose person I did not know.
The 25th was warmly engaged and closely pur-
sued by the enemy, consequently major Gardner,
who was at the head of it, (at the time I allude to.)
much exposed. Hi& conduct, so far as I had an
opportunity of observing it, was perfectly unexcep-
tionable.
At the close of the battle of Chippeway, I was
ordered by major general Scott, as an officer of his
staff, to find the second brigade, which he supposed
lo occupy a wood in the rear of his left — inform
its commanding officer, that he was in close pur-
suit of the enemy, who had broken in every direc-
tion ; and to communicate other information, by
which he might be guided in his movements. On
discovering the second, or general Ripley's brigade,
1 found colonel Gardner, adjutant general, leading
it towards the scene of action, in his stall' capacity,
I presume. \i I mistake not, I first communicated
with colonel Gardner, who appeared to be exe :ut
in? ord< rs '-1 i?'i his usual zca! and abilities.
SI
The second interrogatory is answered, I conceive,
in my reply to the first — to recapitulate, I will ob-
serve, that wherever I have had an opportunity of
observing* the deportment of major Gardner, as a
soldier, he has evidenced great zeal and bravery.
"With respect, kv. &c.
I am your most obedient,
(Signed) ' W. J. WORTH,
Brigade Major 2nd Tnfantr\
To Lieut. Edwards, judge advocate, 6cc. 6cc. &c.
Jefferson County, Bownsfield, &s.
William J. Worth, major of the second regiment
U. S. infantry, being duly sworn, saith — that the
matters and things in the foregoing statement made,
and by him subscribed, are in fact true, and further
saith not.
(Signed) W. J. WORTH,
Brigade Major 2nd Infantrj
Sworn and subscribed to, at Sacketts' Harbor,
the 24th day of November, 1815, before me —
ENOCH ELY,
Justice of the Peace.
MAJOR CROOKER'S DEPOSITION.
Question by the prosecution Did you ever see
major Gardner expose himself to the musketry of
the enemy ?
Washington City, JVov. \\th, 1815.
In answer to the above question, I say no.
(Signed) T. CROOKER,
Major late 9th Infantry.
Washington county Dist. < Columbia.
Personally appeared major Turner Crooker, who
made oath on the holy evangelists, that the answer
82
he has given to the query above stated, is true, and
further saith not.
Sworn to this 13th November, 1815, before
WILLIAM THORNTON,
Justice Peace,
Lieutenant Richard H. Lee, a witness for the
prosecution, being duly sworn to give evidence re-
lative to the third specification of the fourth charge,
says —
So much time has elapsed since the occurrence,
that I have an imperfect recollection of the conver-
sation that transpired — but that I used an observa-
tion towards major Gardner, to this effect : that it
was my opinion, that general Ripley held his char-
acter too contemptible to enter into any "written
correspondence with him. I recollect having made
a repetition of this observation — this is all that I at
present recollect. This conversation took place in
major Gardner's room.
Question by the prisoner. Were you the aid-de-
camp of general Ripley ?
A. I was.
Question by the prisoner. Had you ever any
difference with me ?
A. I don't recollect of any ; I never had.
Question by the prisoner. Was the occasion of
your calling on me, to communicate a message
from major general Ripley — and when you arrived
at my quarters, did you take me by the hand, and
say that you wished to speak to me in private ?
A. The reception I met with from major Gard-
ner, was a very gracious one, which I very stiffly
S3
received, by a formal salutation of my hand. I dia
say that I wished to speak to him in private.
Question by the prisoner. After going with me
to my room, did you not, holding the message of
general Ripley in your hand, observe in general
Ripley's name, these words — general Ripley has
such an opinion of your character, that he will give
you none but verbal messages ; not hold a written
correspondence with you, or words to that effect ?
A. I did, with the addition of the word despi-
cable, or some epithet equally degrading ; and it
was my opinion that general Ripley did believe that
his character was so despicable ; that he would hold
no correspondence with him.
Question by the prisoner. Did I not reply to
the remark as coming from general Ripley, saying
that if general R. supposed that I wished to avail
myself of a written correspondence with him, to
make it public, he very widely mistook my inten-
tions, and that I deprecated the resort to the public
prints in the differences of officers of the army ?
A. Yes.
Question by the prisoner. Did you use such an
expression to me, as it is my opinion ? I wish the
witness to be precise in his recollection.
A. I did.
Question by the prisoner. Did you not read the
message, which you said was a verbal message,
from a paper ?
A. I did three times.
Question by the prisoner. Did you not call upon
:jie, as the aid of gen. Ripley, and on his part only ?
8*
A. I called upon him as the aid of general
Ripley. The latter part of the question requires
explanation.
Question by the prisoner. What was the mes-
sage you read to me — or the amount of it ?
A. I do not recollect.
Question by the prisoner. Were you induced
to suppose from the reply I made to your observa-
tion, or from any part of our conversation, that I
replied to it, as coming from yourself ?
A. I did not make any suppositions on the
subject, I can only say, that the observation ori-
ginated in me.
Question by the prisoner. Were these the words
as near as you can recollect, of the message you
read to me as a verbal one ? "If the friend of major
Gardner, alluded to in his letter of yesterday, will
call on major general Ripley, on the subject of that
letter, general Ripley will give him an answer there-,
to, to the question contained therein."
A. I think they were words to that effect.
Colonel Moody Beedel, of the late eleventh regi-
ment U. S. infantry, a witness on the part of the
prosecution, being duly sworn to testify as to the
third specification of the first, second, and third
charges, says —
I don't recollect seeing colonel Gardner at all on
that day.
Question by the prosecution. Were you in the
sortie from Fort Eric, on the 17th Sept. 1814 ?
A. Yes.
85
Question by the prosecution. Did you see colonel
Gardner in that action ?
A. I did not, to my recollection.
The court adjourned till to-morrow morning
at nine o'clock.
JANUARY 17, 1816.
The court met pursuant to adjournment.
PRESENT.
Colonel M'Neil, president ; lieut. col. Eustis,
lieut. col. Harris, lieut. col. Walbach, major Crane,
captain M'Dowell, captain Thornton, captain Ben-
nett, captain Craig, members ; captain Irvine, su-
pernumerary ; lieut. Edwards, judge advocate.
Captain David Deacon, of the United States
navy, was again examined to testify relative to the
second specification of the fourth charge.
Question by the prisoner. How far was the letter
enclosed in the envelope, which mentioned you as
the bearer, considered received ?
A. I saw general Ripley by himself, and deliv-
ered the letter — he made some observations, and
asked if I had any objections to a third person be-
ing present. He called in major Harris, and after
some conversation, it was accepted. It was not
immediately understood what part I was to take in
the business, until I explained.
Doctor Joseph Lovcll, hospital surgeon of the
U. S. army, a witness for the prisoner, being duly
sworn, to testify relative to the fourth specification
of the fourth charge, was asked the following —
86
Question by the prisoner. Did you ever hear oi
the epithets injurious to me, used by general Rip-
ley, on the frontier, and when ?
A. I never heard of them until I arrived in
Boston, after colonel Gardner's arrest. I was on
the Niagara frontier during the whole of the cam-
paign of 1814 ; I was with the remaining officers
of general Brown's division, during the last spring
and summer — but heard nothing of the epithets
alluded to.
Brevet major Josiah H. Fose, of the sixth infan-
try, a witness for the prisoner, was sworn, to tes-
tify relative to the prisoner's conduct at the battle
of Chippeway —
Question by the prisoner. Did you see me at
the battle of Chippeway, and what did you observe
of my conduct ?
A. The second brigade was formed, waiting
for orders, when major Gardner, the adjutant gene-
ral, rode up — he rode up and spoke with general
Ripley, and then rode off again, down the river to-
ards the battle ground. We made a movement
io cross Street's creek—I was at the head of the
column, and just as I was crossing myself, major
Gardner rode up and attempted to cross on horse-
back, but he was obliged to dismount and cross the
creek on foot toward the enemy ; the brigade then
marched toward the wood in a direction to flank the
enemy — major G. preceded the column and moved
vapidly on ; after penetrating the woods a consi.
derable distance, it was ascertained that the enemy
had retired b< vond Chippeway- We halted for a
87
moment, and then took up our march for camp ;
soon after which major G. left us, and I don't re-
collect to have seen him afterwards. Major G«
was not out of danger at any time while he was
with the second brigade.
The subjoined note was laid before the court by
the prisoner, as evidence in his behalf, relative to
the second specification of the fourth charge :
(COPY.)
This letter was received from a bar-keeper of a
tavern in Boston. This course was manifestly im
proper — it should have been sent by some gentle-
man. The course taken to deliver it to a bar-
keeper, was degrading to the army. The rank of
major general Ripley entitled him to more respect.
The letter on this account is returned — when it is
communicated in a gentlemanly manner, it will be
entitled to be the subject of consideration.
The judge advocate admitted that it was the one
sent by general Ripley to the prisoner, he having
been a witness to captain Kirby's acknowledging
that it was the same.
Brevet lieut. col. S. D. Harris, of the regiment
light artillery, a witness for the prisoner, was then
sworn.
Question by the prisoner. What is your recollec-
tion of the situation of the barn, in rear of Street' ■
creek, relatively to that Greek ?
A. I believe it extended to the creek, and form-
ed a part of the enclosure to the garden.
There being no more testimony offered to the
court, the prisoner was asked when he would be
prepared to make his defence, and answered on
Wednesday next. The court was then adjourned
to the 17th instant, with an understanding, that if
evidence which had been called for, should arrive
previous to that day, it should be received before
the prisoner made his defence.
JANUARY 17, 1816.
The court met pursuant to adjournment.
PRESENT.
Colonel M'Neil, president ; lieut. col. Eustis
lieut. col. Harris, lieut. col. Walbach, major Crane,
captain M'Dowell, captain Thornton, captain Ben-
nett, captain Craig, members ; captain Irvine, su-
pernumerary ; lieutenant Edwards, judge advocate.
Brevet major J. II. Vose, of the sixth infantry,
was examined on the part of the prosecutor.
Question by the prosecution. Was there any
musketry which reached the second brigade at the
battle of Chippeway ?
A. I believe not.
Question by the prosecutor. Had not the enemy
been repulsed in front when the second brigade was
put in motion ?
A. I cannot answer positively as to that — but I
think that was the case. The enemy were repul
sed, but were throwing their cannon shot.
Colonel Moody Beedel, of the late eleventh U. S.
infantry, was examined—
39
Question by the prosecution. When did you first
know, that a sortie from Fort Erie was contem-
plated ?
The prisoner objected to the question as being
irrelevant.
The court decided that the question should be
put to the witness.
The witness answered — At the council of war
which was held about eight days prior to the sortie,
Question by the prosecution. Was gem Brown
present at the council of war ?
A. He was.
Question by the prosecution. What was general
Browii^s position at the sortie, and was it near the
troops, as they were engaged ?
The prisoner objected to the question being put
to the witness, as irrelevant.
The court decided that the question should not
be put.
Question by the prosecution. What position did
colonel Gardner occupy at the sortie ?
A. I did not see him during the day.
Question by the prosecution. What brigade did
you serve with ?
A. The first, under general Miller.
Question by the prosecution* If he, colonel Gard
. r, had been present with general Miller's brigade,
at any time during the action, should you not have
noticed it from your position ?
A. I think that I should..
M
00
Brevet captain 11. M. Kirby, of the corps of ar-
tillery, and aid to major general Ripley, a witness
for the prosecution, was examined.
Question by the prosecution. Did you ever hear
general Ripley pronounce major Gardner a coward,
and under what circumstances ?
A. I heard that expression made use of by
general Ripley, in 1814, in the camp at Fort Erie,
in different conversations.
Question by the prosecution. Do you recollect of
its taking place in a tent when colonel Snelling was
present — if so, state the circumstances ?
A, I recollect a conversation one evening, in
general Ripley's tent — there were a number of offi-
cers present, and I think he was. General Ripley
pronounced him a coward, and colonel Snelling re-
plied, that colonel Gardner lay in the next tent, and
would probably hear the expression ; general Rip-
ley replied, that he intended it for his ear. I have
repeatedly heard general Ripley make use of the
expressions.
Question by the prosecution. Did I make them
openly, and not with an apparent view for any con-
cealment or disguise ?
A. I heard those expressions made use of at
different times, and in different companies — thev
never were made to me alone, I believe, at any time.
Question by the prosecution. When did you first
know of the sortie, and by whom ?
A. The sortie was expected at the time the
militia crossed. I first knew of it on the 15th,
rom major Brooke of the 23d regiment.
Question by the prosecution. Was the circum •
stance that a sortie was meditated known to the
principal officers of camp ?
A. It was a subject talked about among the
officers for about four or five days — not that I knew
from any intimation from head quarters ; with the
exception of the information I have received from
major Brooke. Major Brooke told me that he rer
ceived the information from general Brown. It
was a subject of expectation in camp from the time
the militia crossed.
Question by the prosecution. Did you perform
the duty of aid -de- camp to major general Ripley,
at the sortie ?
A. I did.
Question by the prosecutiotf. Did colonel Gard-
ner bring any order from major general Brown to
major general Ripley ?
A. Not that I know of.
Question by the prosecution. Did you see him
with the second brigade, during the action ?
A. I did not, while the second brigade was to-
gether— it was together but a few minutes.
Question by the prosecution. Did general Ripley
remain with the twenty-third, after the twenty-first
marched from the brigade — and did you see colonel
Gardner at any time with the twenty-third ?
A. General Ripley remained with the twenty-
third regiment, until after he was wounded ; and I
did not see colonel Gardner during that period.
Question by the prosecution. Was colonel Gard-
ner's position when you passed him, within the
musketry of the enemy ?
A. The only time I saw colonel Gardner, if I
saw him at all, was near the ravine, with general
Brown, and I should think, not exposed. General
Brown was surrounded by his staff.
Question by the prosecution. After the batteries
were carried, was not the situation of the troops
such as to require the presence of an adjutant gene-
ral, from their dispersed and deranged situation ?
A. It would have been necessary for the imme-
diate commanding general to have had a sufficient
staff about him, to organize the different corps — I
think that an adjutant general would have done it
more readily, than aids-de-camp, from their supe-
rior rank.
Question by the prisoner. Were you at the time
you say you heard these expressions of general
Ripley, his aid-de-camp ?
A. Yes.
Brevet lieut. col. Samuel D. Harris, of the lieht
artillery, was examined on the part of the prose-
cution.
Question by the prosecution. At the battle of
Niagara, after the capture of the enemy's artillery,
could net its removal have been effected at once, if
there had been a chief of the staff to attend to it ?
A. If we had had harness for the dragoon
horses, we might have brought them off.
Question by the prosecution. After it was cap-
tured, and before the troops rallied, was there not
time to obtain harness from Chippeway, or from
our own artillery ?
i)2>
A. I should suppose there was sufficient time
to obtain harness from Chippeway. At the ter-
mination of the action, I received an order from
general Ripley, by an officer whose name I do not
recollect, ordering me to collect as many of my
troop as I could, to remain on the field as a rear
guard, or party of observation, to watch the move-
ments of the enemy. I remained on the field, and
colonel Towson passed by me ; I asked him if we
could not get off the captured artillery — he replied,
that he had no horses. I observed to him, he might
take mine— he asked me, if I had harness ; I re-
plied in the negative — and he said it was impossi-
ble to get them off.
Question by the prosecution. Were you in the
battle of Chippeway, and engaged in advance with
general Scott's brigade during the action 9
A. Yes.
Question by the prosecution. Did you see colonel
Gardner on the field ?
A. I do not recollect that I did.
Colonel Beedel was again called in.
Question by the prosecution. Did general Brown
on the 15th of September, inform you particularly
of the meditated sortie ?
A. He did, on the evening of the 15th ; the
reasons why he made it known to me, was because
he wanted some non-commissioned officers to send
into the enemy's lines. He requested me not to
mention it to any one ; and I accordingly did not.
Question by the prosecution. When did colonel
Snelline: arrive on the frontier ?
9i
A. He arrived at Buffalo, on the 19th August,
1814, and crossed on the 25th or 26th to Fort Erie.
Lieutenant Richard II Lee, of the corps of artil-
lery, was examined relative to the sortie of the 1 7th
September, 1814.
Question by the prosecution. Did you see major
Gardner during the sortie — and what was your situ-
ation ?
A. My situation was aid-de-camp to brevet
brigadier general Miller. I did not see major Gard-
ner, in the action.
Question by the prosecution. Before the action
commenced, and during it, what was his situation ?
A. With general Brown, I believe — some part
of the time in the ravine, and on the hill near the
Fort. I had not an opportunity of seeing him dur-
ing the action, having been engaged where the trees
would prevent my observing his position, either on
the hill, or in the ravine.
Question by the prosecution. What occurred at
a dinner given to a number of officers, in relation to
major Gardner, at general Miller's quarters, after
the sortie ?
The prisoner objected to the question on account
of its being a general one.
The court decided that it should not be put to
i lie witness.
Question by the prosecution. When did colonel
Shelling arrive at Fort Erie ?
A. As well as 1 can recollect, the 25th or 26th
of August, 1814.
The court adjourned, till 9 o'clock to-morrov
morning",
93
JANUARY 18, 181 fi.
The court met pursuant to adjournment.
PRESENT.
Colonel M'Neil, president ; lieut. col. Eustis,
lieut. col. Harris, lieut. col. Walbach, major Crane,
captain M 'Do well, captain Thornton, captain Ben-
nett, captain Craig, members ; captain Irvine, su-
pernumerary ; lieut. Edwards, judge advocate.
Doctor /. Lovell, hospital surgeon U. S. army,
was examined relative to the prisoner's illness, at
the battle of Niagara.
Question by the prosecution. Did you know of
major Gardner's being more indisposed than the
officers of the army generally, at the battle of Nia-
gara ?
A. I did not know any thing of his being in-
disposed, nor did I hear of it. I was attached at
that particular time, to general Scott's brigade ; I
should not have been likely to have heard of it, ex-
cept by common report. Doctor Bell was the sur
•geon at head quarters.
Captain Armstrong Irvine, of the light artillery,
a witness for the prosecution, was sworn.
Question by the prosecution. Did you serve in
advance of the volunteers, under general Porter, irt
the sortie ?
A. I was in advance of the volunteers at the
sortie ; I considered myself under the command
of colonel Gibson, who commanded the rifle re
giment.
96
Question by the prosecution. Did you sec major
Gardner at any time with that brigade, at the sortie ?
A. Not that I recollect of.
Question by the prosecution. Did not the rifle-
men to which you were attached, march from our
extreme left to our extreme right, and did you see
Colonel Gardner on your whole route ?
A. We marched from the extreme left of For;
Erie, to the enemy's batteries — I did not see col.
Gardner during the whole route.
Brevet lieut. colonel S. D. Harris, of the light
artillery, was examined.
Questioii by the prosecution. Did you see colonel
Gardner after the battle of Niagara ?
A. Yes.
Question by the prosecution. Did he appear more
indisposed than the officers of the army generally ?
A. I had no knowledge of major Gardner's
indisposition.
Brevet major Josiah II Fose, of the fifth regiment
U. S. infantry, was again examined.
Question by the prosecution. How far was gen.
Scott's brigade in advance of the second brigade,
previous to the moving of the second brigade, at
the battle of Chippeway ?
A. I cannot answer that question, as there were
trees and houses between the first and second
brigade. I can say, that I think, they were from
one-half to three-fourths of a mile.
The prisoner laid before the court the following
<rfC\cv : —
07
MILITARY DEPARTMENT, No. If.
•'•' ■ .'■ tl ■ ' ■ . s Office,
Caslle Island, Sept.Zith, 1815.
Sir, — You will not leave Boston without the per-
mission of the commanding general.
By order of Major General E. W. Ripley.
(Signed) II. F. EVANS,
Lieut. Lt. Art. anil Actg. Brig. Inspector.
Major C. K, Gardner, of 3d regt. infantry.
The subjoined orders were received from the
brigade inspector's office.
Jlsad Quaritxs, Northern Division*,
Boston, 6th J\"ov. 1815
DIVISION ORDERS.
The arenefal court martial ordered bv major g-en.
Ripley, commanding the second military depart
ment, for the trial of major C. K. Gardner, acting
adjutant general of the division, will proceed in
his trial, on the charges preferred by major general
Ripley, as already commenced. The president of
said court will report the proceedings thereof to the
major general commanding the division, as he
deems his authority necessary to confirm the result
of the investTscation.
.Major general Ripley will direct the sword of
major Gardner, to be delivered to lieut. col. Jones,
aicl-de-camp to the commanding general, and will
consider the court in the same manner, as if ori-
2T
98
ginally constituted by the commanding general of
the division.
By order of major general Brown.
(Signed) DONALD FRASER,
Major and A. D. Camp<
'True Copy.
(Signed) JAMES T. B. ROMAYNE,
Brigade Inspector.
Head Quarters, Boston, JVuv. 6th, 1S15
GENERAL (DEPARTMENT) ORDER.
The brigade inspector will deliver over the sword
of major Gardner, to lieut. col. Jones, who is au-
thorized to receive it. The arrest of major Gard-
ner is not to be effected by this arrangement.
(Signed) E. W. RIPLEY,
Major General
Tnie Copy.
(Signed) JAMES T. B. ROMAYNE,
Brigade Inspector.
The evidence, both on the part of the prosecu-
tion and the prisoner being closed, the prisoner
made his defence in the following address : —
99
Mr. President, and
Gentlemen of the Court —
As this trial originated in my seeking personal
redress of the major general, who is prosecutor — I
conceive it justifiable to commence in my defence,
with a statement of those occurrences, which have
made their appearance occasionally through the
trial, connected with this personal application. —
That this is the origin of my prosecution, is evinc-
ed from the list of charges themselves — in which a
copy of my letter containing the personal demand,
is brought before the court, attached to an accusa-
tion of conveying to major general Ripley that letter
or note, in an improper manner.
All the specifications to the fourth charge, relate
to my personal difference with the prosecutor, and
contain the epithets coward and scoundrel, which
he alleges that he applied to me, more than a year
since.
I never knew of but one instance in which any
difference, or the accusation of a difference, arose
between general Ripley and myself, until in the
month preceding my arrest. That instance occur-
red, relative to an order, about to be issued by
major general Brown, on his return to the command
at Fort Erie, in the office tent of my department.
General Ripley wished me to change the order,
in which he complained of injustice to himself, and
brigade, and appeared to be angry at my declining
to do so ; but he was careful to drop no expression
100
within my hearing^ or knowledge, which would
subject him to a personal demand.
It is now charged against me, that I knew of
these epithets which he expressed of me, and the
knowlege is deduced from the probability, that I
must have heard of them. Those who testify that
general Ripley used the expressions in conversation
with them — also say, that they never did commu-
nicate them to me. Now wliat is the strength of
this probability, on which general Ripley appears
to ground his exculpation for refusing my demand
at this place — and with which I am to be inculpat-
ed for the weak and cowardly spirit, of tamely rest-
ing under such indignity, without an effort for
redress ? Is. not the probability this, that these.
words would have first come to the ears of some of
the officers who served in the commanding general's"
family, or in the staff, and by their means have been
communicated to me ? Lieut, col. Jones, who was
associated with me in the same department, and
was as familiar with the officers generally, as any
officer in the army, testifies that he never heard of
them, until after the organisation bi the peace estab-
lishment, on his return to S; cl ' tt's Harbor ; that
a,itcr this, he never saw me, until here in Boston ;
and being on the route to Detroit, never had com-
municated with me.
Major general Brown, brigadier general Miller,
(who.servcd in general Ripley's brigade), and hos-
pital surgeon LovcII, have also given to the court,
the same conclusion in their evidence. The pro-
bability, therefore, is against the inference intended
by the specification.
101
No, gentlemen — I never heard them, nor oi
them — until the moment when it appears on your
record, that I Mas informed of them. My claim
to a regard for the principles of frankness and truth,
which is dearer to me than my commission ; and
my reputation for veracity, which has never been
impeached, would be liable to be destroyed by the
obscurest individual of the late or the present army,
were this declaration untrue. Instead of avoiding
the information, I obtained it of colonel Snelling, at
New York, by enquiry. It was immediately on my
arrival from Philadelphia, where colonel Mitchell
had given me intimation of them, by asking me if
colonel Jones had written me of some remarks in-
jurious to me, which had gained circulation, pre-
vious to his leaving the frontier. But colonel
Mitchell declined stating himself, their nature, or
source. I never could have avoided being inform
ed of expressions. A redress for which, by the
rules of honor held in the army, I should have been
supported in the army, in demanding of a brigadier
general.
At inofficial conversations, all those ofcwhate^ .
rank, who voluntarily engage in them, are subject-
ed to the same lavs of politeness, and the same
rules for the redress of personal injury. The ease
is different where an injur,- is received, howevei
gross, from an official act, or an official report — th
becoming jedress in such case, for a military man.
is an appeal to a superior. But if an officer 6Y h
rank, descend to use abusive expressions of an\
other, in company, he also descends to an equality
of personal : ibiiity.
102
Whatever remarks may have been made in this
town, on the subject, this distinction, I conceive,
cannot be questioned.
On the occasion of these injurious epithets, gen.
Ripley was reminded by colonel Sneiling, of this
responsibility — and the general making a merit of
the obligation, avowed his readiness to give me
personal satisfaction. It was now too late to fulfil
his extorted promise, but it was not too late to ar-
raign me on the accusation of having heard of these
boasted epithets without redress.
I determined to give general Ripley immediately
an opportunity to cancel the obligation. By having
an officer of rank as my friend, I wished to afford
general Ripley, the least possible objection. I sug-
gested it to a field officer at New York, lieut. col.
Sneiling, who, after some remarks upon the situa-
tion of his family, consented to accompany me. —
He was present when the promise was given by
general Ripley ; he is an officer of the most cor-
rect sentiments of propriety, and of the most honor-
able standing, through a long service. On confer-
ring; with him ae'ain, he conceived— aware of the
principles and disposition of general Ripley, that it
Mould be uselessly exposing himself to an arrest,
and to the appearance of folly, in taking the journey
with me directly to the station of general Ripley —
before ascertaining the course general Ripley would
adopt ; though convinced that the principles of
honor, and the disposition of a noble mind could
admit of no other course than a fulfilment of the
pledge. Colonel Sneiling found sufficient evidence
iOS
from his conversation with me then, that I had been
traduced by the supposition, that I had known of
these expressions before. He engaged on my ob-
taining an answer from general Ripley, to the en-
quiry contained in the note which is attached to the
specification, at my request, to join me immedi-
ately in Boston. (See passage marked A. ap-
pendix.)
I knew no field officer at the time, in the harbor
of Boston, to whom I could apply — but my inten-
tion was, should the tenor of general Ripley's reply
admit of it, to resort to any friend at this place who
could do me the service. Colonel M'Neil arrived
here (previous to general Ripley's return from New
Hampshire,) whom I found, on our first conversa-
tion, to be friendly to general Ripley. I conceived,
however, that the course I had adopted, would be
unobjectionable ; I gave general Ripley a full view
in this letter, of the evidence I possessed of his
promise, and his expressions. — (See passage mark-
ed B.) This explained to him the little room he
had to retreat — and I conceive was a source, not
only frank but generous. The little room that was
left him, however, he imagined after twenty-four
hours consideration, he had discovered. He could
not deduce an objection from his superior rank, nor
allege that my character had changed, since he gave
the pledge, (for it was given at the end of the cam-
paign in Fort Erie,) nor deny that it was given.
But, though I carried this letter myself, to the house.
in which he stopped, on his arrival from New-
Hampshire, and sent it immediately into his room,
JUi
by a person attending, and under seal ; yet, on this-
circumstance, tne manner of its delivery, he found-
ed an objection. This was so little, that I had not
anticipated it — though I was addressing genera!
Ripley. What docs he allege in the specification
constituted the objection ? That no officer or gen-
tleman gave the letter, by whom he could send the
reply.
He sent a reply, however, by an officer, his aid-
de-camp.
The court will pardon me in calling their atten-
tion, for a moment, to the absurdity comprehended
in this little subject. If I had sent an officer to
him, with the letter — would he have sent by that
same officer, at the moment, his reply ? or, would
he not have waited, to send by some friend, or an
officer of his staff, as he did, his deliberate deter-
mination ? 1 had no aid or assistant, whom I could
charge with my letter ; and if I had so sent it — I
do net coneeive it would have made any difference,
except in subjecting the officer who delivered it, to
an arrest. I ashed a reply to one question only —
ivhethef an officer fully authorized to act ;;s m)
friend, in all respects, would be received by him,
rged will: such a message, as was described —
without holding him subject to an infraction, by
[lie act of any military obligation, or any military
law.
His avoiding to give this assurance, until my
id should present himself, proves that if he
had presented himself, he would haye been ar-
■ ■ t< .!
105
1 then, with a view to take from general Ripley,
this small ground of objection, requested an officer
of the navy, captain Deacon, who was not within
his immediate power, to wait upon him at Tort In-
dependence, with the same letter, making the same
application with respect to my friend, the field
officer.
I enclosed it, in the letter of the 18th September,
which was regularly laid before the court ; and I
will ask leave to read, both the note of general
Ripley, and this, which was sent in reply. — (See
C. andD.)
To the officer who presented this, general Rip-
ley asserted, that the objection which existed
against the letter, from the former manner of de-
livering it, was, in this instance removed. Yet, he
inserts an accusation against me, for communicat-
ing the letter, again, in this manner. In the first
instance, the objection was (according to the note,)
to its not being conveyed in a respectful manner —
that it should have been carried by some gentleman
— and, now he charges me with having conveyed
it by this gentleman of the navy ; alleging as the
evidence of its impropriety, that he carried it as a
stranger. Independent of the untruth of this, the
first objection was expressly, to the manner only,
of making this communication ; which is made to
appear so important a formality, as to involve the
dignity of the army. I had only requested captain
Deacon, to be the bearer of the letter ; but, he was
apprized (as he states) of the subject of both letters.
With a referrence to the testimony of rapt. Deacon,
o
106
I will leave these frivolous specifications, of ihe
prosecutor, intended only to give consequence to
his evasive objections to a disagreeable demand.
I will venture to say, that no precedent can be
found in the history of courts martial, for accusa-
tions like these, unless it be where the prosecutor
has been the officer ordering the trial. (See ex-
tract E.)
On the evening of the second day from this, I
received from major general Ripley, a farther eva-
sive reply, to the letter as delivered by captain
Deacon. It is a verbal message, as it was called,
read to me from a paper, by his aid-de-camp, lieut.
Lee, and furnishes a specimen of the most witty and
adroit equivocation — which might do him credit as.
an attorney, for suits at common pleas.
The message is this — (See F.)
He carefully avoids conveying a word from which
the least assurance could be deduced relative to my
friend — but says, if my friend, the field officer al-
luded to, will call on him, he will give him an an-
tiwer to the question. This was the disguised
court proceeding of an officer of the elevated rank
cf major general, toward a major whom he had in-
jured. Why did he not openly warn me of
my misconduct in the affair ; and state to me
bis intention, to arraign me on these or oilier
grounds ?
I determined to afford him the opportunity for
the fullest exercise of his inclination, and of the
qualities of his mind. As the field officer alluded
to, was required — I wrote to colonel Snelling,
107
Vvhom I had apprised of all the circumstances, to
join me immediate!)*.
On the fifth day from this message, which was
read to me, I received from general Ripley, the or-
der of the 24th September, exercising over me his
authority as commanding general of this depart-
ment. In this character he was enabled on a safer
stage of action, to perform the part he intended.-—
(Sec G.)
But there is connected with this verbal message,
a circumstance which furnishes a more extraordi-
nary ground to major general Ripley, for an accu-
sation against me, than any of those that preceded
it. I am accused of suffering his aid-de-camp,
lieutenant Lee, when he called on me officially with
a message from his general, on this occasion, to
use toward me the abusive expressions detailed in
the specification. After requesting to speak to mc
in private, (though he found me in company with
an officer only,) and when alone in my room, hold-
ing the message in his hand, he states, that he
made the observation alluded to, using the name of
general Ripley. The inference that 1 was necessa-
rily obliged to make, I will leave to suggest itself
to the court. Though the lieutenant may be ie:no-
rant of a staff officer's connection with his general,
the members of the court are not.
Some inconsistency may be observed in the tenor
of Mr. Lee's evidence. He commences with re-
marking, that the particular circumstances of the
occasion, he cannot bring to recollection. An af-
fair which after being reported to his. general, and
108
in other places, was considered of so much impor-
tance as to be made the subject of an accusation,
(with a want of wisdom, and of experience in mili-
tary duties, equal to that of the lieutenant.) You
will then observe Mr. Lee's precision in recollect-
ing that he used the expression, " it is my opinion.^
From the circumstances of the case, as well as
the tenor of his evidence, I shall not venture much
for veracity, with the court, in venturing to differ
with him, in this — and that he does not recollect,
from the bearing of my reply to the observation, or
from any part of our conversation, whether I ap-
peared to consider it as coming from him, or from
general Ripley. I had not expected from general
Ripley any thing but abuse, in his treatment of me
— and I as little expected, or thought of any obser-
vation, good or bad, from lieutenant Lee, on his
own part.
On the bearing of this specification, let me ask
the court to be so curious as to compare the inge-
nuity of its false representation, with the statement
brought to the recollection of lieutenant Lee, in a
question of mine, to which he assented. The
statement reads — (See H. and L.)
The character of the aid is suppressed, and the
occasion on which he called on me, and the obser-
vation made, is transformed from one, relating to
and accounting for, that mode of general Ripley's
communication with me — into an insulting remark,
as if made at some inofficial or accidental conver-
sation, by a lieutenant Lee, of the army — having
general reference to the correspondence of all officers
with me.
109
On the next day after the order detaining me in
Boston, I was served with a copy of a general or-
der, containing my arrest. I had been informed
by a friend, of the course which general Ripley
would take to exonerate himself, refusing: to meet
me at this time ; which was to accuse me of
cowardice before the enemy. The object was no
less than to sustain his reputation, by effecting with
the force of his station and authority, the destruc-
tion of mine. I confess, gentlemen, though con-
scious of no misdeed, that I thought of this alterna-
tive of vindictiveness with horror. What I felt on
the anticipation of having my name coupled with
accusations of such a nature, from whatever inter-
ested source they should originate, with whatever
evidences of oppression be attended, I will leave,
gentlemen, to your feelings, faintly to picture to
yourselves — for they cannot be realized or compre-
hended by the force of language. The fame of a
military man, can be as easily defaced, as the honor
of a female. If the man can be found, who will
wantonly make an attack upon either — the contest,
however favorable its result, must leave an indelible
stain, upon his or her reputation ; and its fairness
with all delicate minds, is destroyed, while its me-
mory survives.
The proposition made through colonel Aspin-
wall, for my release from arrest, and a manuscript
pamphlet shewn to him, are made the subject of
an accusation.
The proceedings I had entered upon towards
general Ripley, were from the injunctions of us
110
and what was clue to myself only, I had no senti-
ment or care with respect to the individual, who
had made himself my opponent in the case, further
than to obtain the redress such usage required.
There is a consideration and view of contempt,
in which an individual may be held by honorable
minds — from a life of intrigue, and a character bar-
ren of principle — that, though he may be. the in-
strument of much mischief, he can never become
the object of revenge. Such a person is to be at-
tacked and avoided like a serpent, when he comes
in your way.
By virtue of the authority, with which general
E. was fortuitously clothed, and the exercise of
which he assumed over me, I was placed in arrest.
Any farther proceedings to obtain the redress, I
sought in this way, were closed. I knew the arm}
would duly estimate the conduct of my opponent,
and do me justice in the affair, on a simple know*
lege of the fact. I could entertain personally but
one sentiment toward general Ripley.
With respect to any agency of mine in correct
ing the factitious elevation of general R. with the
public, I knew that the artifices and false reports by
which his military character had been sustained,
must without my means, be eventually understood ;
and th'at the misrepresentations relating to him, and
injurious to other individuals of great character
and influence, would, notwithstanding the efforts of
a few newspapers, be shortly dissipated and exposed.
On the day of my arrest, on which 1 saw colonel
Asoinwall in tins town, after having a long* conver-
gation with him on the subject of the degrading dif-
ferences and publications which had occurred since
the war, relative to a campaign which had so great-
ly elevated the army. I did not hesitate to make
any proposition, not dt grading to me personally,
which could have the effect to release me from my
participation in a further shameful difference with
general R. I requested colonel Aspinwall only to
appear as a mutual friend, or mediator, for the good
of the army — and coniided to him, to make no pro-
position from me, until after conversing with gen.
Ripley — found him previously disposed to accede
to such a measure. Colonel Aspinwall holds that
honorable standing, that I would have entrusted any
request to his charge, connected with my honor. —
He did not go as a messenger, which he alleges to
general Ripley, from me ; I could have as little
consented to it, as he could to have been such an
agent.
From the court's wish to shorten the time of the
evidence, and its injunction to colonel Aspinwall ;
the abrupt commencement which he makes in his
statement, would seem to give a different aspect to
the transaction. He, however, at the termination,
states, that I left him to act according to his sense
of propriety ; and that I frequently charged him not
to commit my honor — (the word generally is used
in the record, but, from my recollection, he said
frequently, or repeatedly.')
I will here notice the queries which have been
made concerning my general character. I would
think it unnecessary to make any remark upon the
113
slanders in relation to my standing in the old sixth
regiment — as they stand in questions to which a
disavowal has been given by the witness of the pro-
secution— but the fabrications have been circulated
out of court, and I am induced to believe, with
knowlege that they were such. The standing I
held as an officer, before my prosecutor entered the
service, is known to a majority of this court.
The copy of a letter from doctor Ross, furnished
by general Wilkinson, in his deposition, as a ground
for his sentiments — I think it necessary to annex to
my defence, to account for his personal feelings
towards me — (See K.) I am surprized, that gen.
Wilkinson should consider this as the best founda-
tion for an opinion on oath ; when he possesses
another copy of a letter from the same doctor Ross,
which proves him to the view of general Wilkinson,
a villain, a wretch, destitute alike of spirit and
principle. It is a letter to general Armstrong, then
secretary of war, representing of general Wilkin-
son every thing (hat is foul, in his conduct down
Lhe St. Lawrence.
On the grossness of censure passed upon general
Ripley, in a. manuscript narrative of the last cam-
paign, the testimony of colonel Aspinwall is ex-
plicit. If there be any crime in this manuscript, it
should be made to appear in the untruth of some
statement which is injurious to general Ripley's re •
nutation. To assume the ground, that if it cen-
sure general R. it must therefore be criminal and
nntruc, is so far from being correct, that I allege, a
narrative of the truth and of the facts, cannot be
written without censuring general Ripley.
113
With respect to the freedom to write such a pam
phlet, many other inofficial narratives, and partial
extracts of narratives, applauding some and censur-
ing others, have been written as well as printed,
under the authority of an officer, w hose rank would
lead us to expect a better example. They are all
unmilitaiy — but where the names of the narrators
are given, I conceive it reflects most seriously upon
the discipline of the army.
The next act of mine, which came within the
know lege of general Ripley, forms the next accu-
sation against me. It is for writing the protest
contained in the minutes of the proceedings. It
may be an offence in common law, to use a threat,
toward a civil officer, in the execution of his duty ;
but the attempting to intimidate a military man, has
seldom, I imagine, been the subject of a charge for
a military trial.
My sentiments in the illegality of general R's.
proceedings against me, have been explained to the
court ; but 1 conceive the court's decision on their
being competent to my trial, does not involve a
decision on the illegality of my arrest.
I trust the court will appreciate the motion of my
subsequent objections to the trial — as being direct-
ed against the oppression displayed in the origin of
the arraignment. Though the authority was legal-
ly vested in general Ripley, to order general courts
martial, yet I was by an undue exercise of authority *
put in arrest. But being in arrest, and placed un-
der the jurisdiction of a court constituted by pro-
per authority, the court could not, without the
p
414
intervention of that authority, or of a superior one,
release me from the order "when issued for my trial,
nor avoid its effect. The question of jurisdiction
lay with the officer, instituting the trial — and with
him rests the responsibility.
But the enormous charges were now laid before
the court, after concealing from me until twenty-four
hours before it, the substance of them, and conceal-
ing from me until the court convened, the order for
its convention. I will leave the court to weigh the
evidence which has been produced to substantiate
these heavy charges, without reference to any sum-
mary on my part. I cannot assent to the court's
; • ceiving a recital of testimony on this subject, from
me, which from its deep connection with my cha-
racter, would naturally excite suspicion, and be sub-
jected to discredit.
The court will not fail to observe from the dis-
tance of time, and the distance from witnesses, that
I was not enabled to obtain in evidence so man}'
particular facts, as the strength of general testimo-
ny. But who were better capable of giving them
evidence of my general conduct, than my command-
ing general, and lieut. col. Jones, who was associ-
ated with me in the same department, through the
campaign. The statements given by major gtn.
Brown, are relatdtl to the court, with that frankness
which marks his character. Whenever he speaks,
he eives conviction to the hearer ; he bears him-
sell' with the independence of truth, for he has
nothing to disguise, and, fearless of censure, for his
motives are honest.
115
The court will remark the want of precision in
different parts of Mr. Brimhali's testimony ; though
he gives his first relation, as if the circumstance oc-
curred but yesterday. They will observe some
inconsistency in his speaking of the situation of the
houses into which he retired from the bridge.
They will not be surprized at the impression of
lieut. Brimhall, not having any khowlege of the in-
structions under which he acted ; and they will ob-
serve his dullness of recollection, in answering mv
questions — as to how I came into the road, on
which he saw me riding away ; and whether lie
saw me at a position on the road in view of the ene-
my. They will also observe that he. could recol-
lect nothing of my appearance on such an occasion,
though he was quite near enough to observe me ;
and he also does not remember that I spoke to him
when I approached, and they will make their own
deductions from the lieutenant's subsequent reten-
tion in the army.
The court will no doubt perceive the object of
the prosecutor, in suppressing the staff character of
captain Clarke, in that specification, in the same
manner he has practised it in relation to his aid,
lieut. Lee. They will find an origin in captain
Clarke's impressions, in the reports he had heard in
company with his general, previous to the sortie ;
and will duly appreciate the value of his military
opinion — that the brigade major was an improper
person to communicate an order to his brigade,
from which also he must have drawn his infer-
<• nee, that it was some other motive than a coi i
116
one, which could induce me to give the order to
him.
Bevond the testimony which has been produced
to the court, immediately connected with my con-
duct through the Niagara campaign — an inference
having a forcible application to my prosecutor, may
be fairly drawn, from one relative situation, then,
and subsequent.
At Fort Erie, after his return from furlough, and
after he had seen the printed report of the battle of
Niagara — general Ripley applied the abusive epi-
thets to me, it would appear, from motives of per-
sonal animosity only. He supposed, as I am in-
formed, he has frequently declared, that I had an
agency in the injury done him in that ofhciul report.
The campaign closed, and general Ripley had
p-one to the interior. Nothing is heard of any ac-
cusations against me. At Washington, he is seen
the member of a board of general oihcers, consti-
tuted by the executive, for the important duty of
cting the officers of the army most worthy
to be retained on a permanent establishment. —
What was my situation with respect to my chance
for retention ? From all the majors ol infantry and
riflemen, (which corps were consolidated for the
selection,) nine were to be chosen — and as it was
stated, the board a' a rule to give precede
to those having brevets ; by < ns, eight
of the nine places were at once : i. J had not
then been noticed by a breve t.
What is the dilemma which now involves major
general Ripley's conduct on that occasion ? Did he
11 7
make to the board a communication of my preti
ed misdeeds ? If he did, the board discredited his
assertions. I was appointed to the remaining va-
cancy. If he did not, cither he was faithless in the
discharge of a most momentous duty, or he knew
the whole to be fabrications of his own production.
Yes, gentlemen, the impression of lieut. Brimhall,
never would have gained the consideration of a
rumor, had it not been seized and cherished, by the
animosity of my prosecutor.
There is a closer application Gf this dilemma to
major general Ripley, than the strong one which
already stands apparent. In his charges ag i - v
me, he openly alleges that he culled me by tl
disgraceful epithets on the frontier, and that 1
knew of them more than a year before ; and I have
sufficient proof that he has stated that he had called
me so to my face, or told it to me personally. If
he had made this statement to the board, from his
own knowlege, would he have been overruled ? If
he supposed that with such a character of infamy, as
this allegation involves, I was worthy of continu-
ance in the army, of what materials must he I
imagined, our army was composed P
If he had expressed to the government any
these things against me, would the president,
Mr. Dallas, have subsequently signed a bi
me — which was sent to me subse [ucntto tl
and unsolicited on my part.
From either position that the slanders wer •
false, on which he now arraigns me before
court — or if true, that he knowingly withheld
118
from the board — the inference of corruption is
inevitable.
Whatever may have been his motives at Wash.
ington, to bring the application of this to the ques-
tion before you — how clearly does his object appear
in my present arrest and arraignment ; the gratifi-
cation of personal views.
He denounces me on the frontier, from a motive
of personal animosity only ; which also appears
from the company and manner in which he is de-
scribed to have done it — and he uses this very de-
nunciation, as the ground of jiiy arrest here, for an
object of personal safety. That the public good is
his aim, is scarcely pretended — -and there is not
an occurrence that preceded my arrest, in which the
dignity of the army was any way compromised.
I will close with a reference to my own con-
duct, as connected with that of my prosecutor, in
what he calls the essential cause of the principal
charges, and which appears in accompanying accu-
sations.
I put it now to you, gentlemen, as honorable
and high minded soldiers — what you may believe
my situation then was, and what, under similar
circumstances, your conduct Mould have been. —
Assertions deadly to my fame — false as the fabrica-
tions of a demon — and circulated with a spirit as
cunning, had been made and reported, a year ago,
by an officer, whose station enabled him to edge
with poison every arrow of his slander. They are
so circulated, that all those who hear them, think,
I also knew their existence— and wonder at the
Ill)
lameness of my spirit, which could sit down under
such imputations, infamous and contented.
A twelve month elapses, and I hear from a friend,
for the first time, how greatly I am wronged, and
the high authority of the man who has ventured to
do me the injury. Whatever might have been my
chance for satisfaction, had I received an original
communication of the aspersions, a difficulty was
incurred, of which you, gentlemen, are fully sensi-
ble— in the authority which my opponent had ac-
quired. The panoply of rank, was a much safer
shield to him, than the honor of a gentleman ; yet,
through this shield it was necessary for me to pene-
trate. I was here a stranger — my friend, anticipat-
ing by what principles the general would be go-
verned, though he was willing to accompany me to
the field, had no wish to be my companion before a
military court.
It was, as he foresaw. This great man wraps
himself in the warmth of power — quibbles at the
manner of address — a want of respect — a deficiency
in form, and every contrivance of falsehood is re-
sorted to, to preserve his irresponsibility, till he
consummates it by my arrest, and renews the inju-
ry, which his authority enables him securely to re-
peat, in arraigning me on a prosecution of his own.
Not to have defended my honor, by my ovui
hand — would, it is confessed, have been disgrace-
ful. I attempted to do so, and am sent a prisoner
to Fort Warren. If in the manner of seeking" re-
o
dress, you perceive any little deviation from
( tiquette, you will find an apology from the situa-
•
tion in which I was placed. But I dare proudly
contrast the manner in which I bore myself deeply
injured, and seeking satisfaction as soon as the in-
jury was known — with that of my prosecutor, con.
triving pitiful pretences to avoid a demand which
was hazardous ; and shrinking behind the barrier
of his official rank, from the just resentment of an
injured — deeply injured, fellow officer.
The court adjourned till nine o'clock, on Satur-
day morning, the 20th inst. to afford the prosecutor
time to make a reply to the prisoner's defence.
JAXUARY 20, 1816.
The court met pursuant to adjournment.
PRESENT,
Colonel M'Neil, president ; lieut. col. Eustis,
lieut. col. Harris, lieut. col. Walbach, major Crane,
captain McDowell, captain Thornton, captain Ben-
nett, captain Craig, members ; captain Irvine, su-
pernumerary ; lieut. Edwards, judge advocate.
The prosecutor replied to the defence of the
prisoner, in the following address : —
121
to the president and memreits of the court.
Gentlemen —
It becomes my duty to reply to the defence of
the prisoner. In the remarks I may have occasion
to make, I totally disclaim any wish to create an
impression on your minds, unfavorable to him, any
farther than the evidence supports it. If upon the
testimony, as adduced in the case, you can acquit
him of the charges, I shall be perfectly satisfied.
But the honor and reputation of the army are iden-
tified with the purity of trials by courts martial. —
It is the only tribunal to which a soldier can resort
for the vindication of his conduct. Let then, pas-
sion and prejudice be foreign from your delibera-
tions ; let the testimony adduced in the cause, be
fairly weighed, and as that operates, so I trust will
be your decision.
The prisoner in his defence, has resorted to facts
which appear on the record ; he has also adverted
to explanations of particular points from his own
statements. Thus far, in one or two instances, I
shall follow his example. The court are honora-
ble men — they will analyse the testimony, they will
receive neither the statements of major Gardner,
nor myself, any farther than they are supported by
argument. The prisoner has also referred to the
conduct of the prosecutor ; so far as that conduct
has been involved in the testimony adduced, so far
?t is the subject of discussion and animadversion.
122
But when general epithets have been applied, which
have no support from the testimony ; when instead
of resorting to a fair and correct exposition of facts,
it has been the course of the prisoner to advert to
imputations which in fact have no foundation, it is
unnecessary to disclaim them.
The prisoner has simply in his defence, taken a
view of the last charge and specifications, embrac-
ing the transactions here. He has not even glanced
at the long story of the Niagara campaign. I ad-
mire his discretion ; he could not advert to it.
Turn it, pervert it as he might, still its touch to
him would be perdition. I shall in the first in-
stance, resort to the circumstances which occurred
here — but it is my intention to develope thorough-
ly the facts of the campaign, so far as they are ap-
plicable to him. Let the true state of things be
properly impressed on your minds ; and as milita-
ry men, as men of chivalry, you will say the course
I pursued was proper, and that it seals the prisoner's
condemnation.
"Charge IV. — -Conduct unbecoming an officer
and a gentleman.
Specification 1. — For that the said Charles K.
Gardner, at Boston, in the county of Suffolk, on or
about the 14th September, did address a note to
major general Ripley, a copy of which is hereunto
annexed, and instead of sending the said note by
some officer of the army, or some gentleman who
could receive an answer to it — did, then and there,
leave the same with the bar-keeper of a public
house, in said Boston, to be by him delivered to
said major general Ripley.
123
(COPY.)
Boston, \ith September, 1815.
Sir — I have, within but a few days past, at
Philadelphia, and on enquiry a* New York, heard
of abusive expressions, which you have applied to
me at Fort Erie, and elsewhere.
Why in so long a period I have not been inform-
ed of them before this, I can only impute it to the
opinion of those who may have heard them, that
the malice of the expressions defeated themselves.
That you have used them principally before your
friends, but in frequent instances ; I now have all
the evidence which is requisite — though you have
taken me by the hand whenever occasion occurred,
as if nothing of that nature had happened. This
injury is entirely a personal one, and I conceive it
wholly distinct from any difference which you may
have with any other officer.
The memorandum of an officer of distinction,
who was present, that you " expressed a perfect
willingness to bring the difference to a personal
issue," and that you intended the expressions for
my ear, I have in my possession.
I now demand redress. My friend, a field offi-
cer of the line, requires an assurance of being safe
in a military point of view, when he will wait on
vou. To this one point I request your reply.
I liiive the honor to he, sir,
Your very obedient servant,
(Signed) C. K. GARDNER.
Gen. Ei.ea.zeb W. flUriJSY.
I request the reply may be sent to the Exchange.
(Signed) 0. K. G.
«2i
Specijication 2. — After the said note was return-
ed, to A\it : at Boston, aforesaid, although it was
publicly rumored in Boston, that the said Gardner
had come on for the purpose of fighting said major
general Ripley, and although in returning the said
note, major general Ripley had expressly stated the
reason why it was not received, was because it was
not communicated by said Gardner, through the
medium of some friend, in a gentlemanly way, or to
that effect ; he, the said Gardner, transmitted the
same again by captain Deacon, of the navy, who
then and there informed said Gardner, he could
not, from his engagements, appear as the friend oi"
said Gardner, but would consent to bear the letter
as a stranger, but to make no arrangements in con-
sequence of it.
Spccificaiio?i 3. — For that the said Gardner, al
Boston, aforesaid, on or about the twentieth of Sep-
tember last, did suffer lieutenant Lee, of the army,
to inform him personally that general Ripley's
opinion of him was so low and contemptible that
he should think it degrading for any gentleman to
enter into a correspondence with him, the said Gard-
ner, without in any manner resenting it.
Specification 4. — For that the said Gardner, at
Boston, aforesaid, on or about the fourteenth day of
said September, did attempt to open a correspon-
dence with said general Ripley, in manner before
stated, when he, the said Gardner, had been called
by said major general Ripley, a scoundrel or cow-
ard, on the frontier, more than a year since ; which
he, the said Gardner, then and there well knewrbu±
of which he took no notice.
123
SUPPLEMENTARY SPECIFICATION.
Conduct unbecoming an oj/icer and a gentkmaft*
— For that the said Gardner, at Boston, aforesaid,
on or about the 25th September last, and while he
was under arrest by the order of major general
Ripley, did shew to colonel Aspinwall, late of the
army, a work in manuscript, purporting to be a
narrative of the last campaign, in which said Gard-
ner had grossly and outrageously censured the con-
duct of the said major general Kipley ; and he, the
said Gardner, did, then and there, instruct said As-
pinwall, to propose to major general Ripley, that if
he should discharge the arrest of the said Gardner,
and let the business drop, he, the said Gardner, in
consideration thereof, would entirely suppress the
said work, and. be quiescent.
Chakce V. — Disrespectful conduct and lan-
guage.
Specification 1. — For that the said Gardner, at a
place called Fort Warren, on the first day of Octo-
ber, 1815, did address a note to the said major
general Ripley, in the form of a protest against the
legality of the proceedings instituted by said major
general Ripley, against the said Gardner, and in tht
said note, the said Gardner has the following para-
graph :
" I wish to give you notice, that the court martial
for my case, which you have ordered to convene
on the 4th inst. and vour arrest of me, on charges
not of immediate occurrence, and which admit of
reference to your commanding general, are illegal^
and that it will become the subject of an additional
accusation against you, if persisted in."
12fi
The same being intended to threaten the said
major general Ripley, with an accusation, if he per-
sisted in doing his duty."
I had pronounced the prisoner a coward, on the
Niagara frontier. Was there for me sufficient jus-
tification for the epithet ? It was about the period
the report of the battle of Niagara, made its appear-
ance in the camp at Erie. In that report, I found
my own reputation assailed, and major Gardner's
extolled. I knew, and the army were sensible that
if the report was not the production of major Gard-
ner, still he gave a direction to it. His conduct
was the subject of investigation. His attempts to
form a cabal, hostile to me, were perfectly manifest.
That the report was incorrect, so far as it respects
myself, has been perfectly evinced by the acts of
the government, and the subsequent conduct of
major general Brown. In this state of things was
the character of colonel Gardner made the subject
of discussion. Was it to be expected, when he
was extolled for conduct which would have dis-
graced others, that it should not awaken the feel-
ings of the army ? Is an individual to be hunted
down, and not to raise an arm in his defence ? Is
an army to be so organized, that an officer of it is to
be attacked, and his reputation assailed, when the
conduct of the individual, although junior in rank,
who thus seeks, makes the base attempt, Cannot
be the subject of investigation ? I did pronounce
major Gardner, a coward, publicly and in the
face of officers who associated with him. He
127
.knew it ; it was impossible it should be otherwise.
Reporcs of that kind are never circulated, but that
they immediately reach the ear of the individual
for whom they are intended. Look at the facts in
this case, and see if any other deduction can be
drawn. Colonel Snelling says, at one time when
the expressions were used, Gardner was in the next
tent ; he says that my remark was intended for
colonel Gardner's ear ; he immediately took the
pains to see whether he was asleep ; he saw him
lying on his face, but he cannot tell whether he was
asleep or not. Captain Kirby states, that a num.
ber of officers were present, both at this, and other
times. Colonel Hindman states, that the same re-
marks were made at Washington, in presence of
doctor Bronaugh, and colonel Selden. Major
Gardner was at Washington at the time. Before
the board of officers at Washington, I particularly
objected to the retention of major Gardner ; his
character was not perfectly understood by two of
the general officers present. I was frank, open and
unequivocal in my remarks.
Look at the testimony of captain Bell. He states
particularly, that " colonel Gardner while at Alba-
ny, last winter, was well informed of general Rip.
ley's dislike to him." But his particular expres-
sions he does not remember. In connection with
the other testimony, gentlemen, take this into con-
sideration. What did general Ripley's dislike ori-
ginate from ? How was it expressed ? You have
the evidence. It was expressed by the epithets
which are related in the specification. Major
12H
Gardner himself does not attempt to explain it in
any other manner ; there is no pretence that I ever
expressed my dislike in any different way. From
this fair construction of the testimony — situated in
camp with major Gardner, giving perfect liberty to
every one to state to him the facts ; with the posi-
tive testimony of captain Bell, that he well knew
my dislike to him, and there not being a pretence
that, that dislike was ever manifested in any other
manner, can you for a moment doubt that major
Gardner was aware of the statements I had made.
Gentlemen, there are witnesses, who, if they
could have been compelled to attend this court,
would have brought the testimony more home to
major Gardner. They are deranged officers of
the army — I can satisfy you as soldiers, though
not as a military tribunal, of their existence. It is
not my fault that the lapse of time and the derange-
ment of the army, should have scattered these wit-
nesses to the four winds of Heaven. In a moral
view, they will satisfy ; in a legal view, this re-
mark is to have no effect at all. What then is the
course major Gardner sees fit to pursue, knowing
my dislike to him — gathered in no other possible
mode than from my having called him by the epi-
thet, coward. He suffers the affair to slumber ;
he calls upon me for no explanation of the cause of
my dislike ; he remains perfectly passive. After
more than a year had elapsed, he repairs to Boston.
The rank of the two individuals had become
changed. On the Niagara frontier, major Gardner
was adjutant, gei ■' i al ; his rank was that of a colonel ;
120
but in point of station, he was second only to the
commander in chief, and could be controlled by no
other. I was the junior brigadier general. In
September last, the relative state of things was
changed. Colonel Gardner had reverted to the
situation of a major, and I had received promotion
to the rank of major general, commanding a sepa-
rate department.
He arrives in Boston ; he avows his object is to
have a personal rencontre with me. The darin^
soldier who had gained no reputation duri; ga san-
guinary campaign, now intends to acquire it by
blustering with, but not by fighting, a major
eeneral.
I say he had no intention to light. Look at the
facts in the case, and then say whether his conduct
manifested any such disposition. If he had came
on for the purpose of fighting, he would not have
come without his friend. The pretence that col.
Snelling did not shew himself for fear of being ar-
rested, is totally absurd. The obvious course for
colonel Gardner to pursue, would have been to keep
his project secret ; to have come with his friend ;
and then to have addressed to me a note, request-
ing me to wave my rank. Bearing this letter on
the part of colonel Gardner, would have subjected
colonel Snelling to no military tribunal, foritv\ould
not have been a challenge under the articles of war.
Tf colonel Snelling had made his appearance with
such a letter, I could at once have told him what
course I should pursue. I should either h»ve
waved my rank ; or should have remarked to him
130
that colonel Gardner's character was such as to
render it improper for me to meet him. If colonel
Snelling appeared as the friend of colonel Gardner,
under such circumstances, he would have been
bound to make it a personal affair, and my aids
who solicited that they might make it their own
affair, would have been bound to meet him. This,
gentlemen, would have been the ordinary course of
the transaction, upon every principle of chivalry.
It is obvious and apparent ; a departure from it in
essentials was unoflicerlike. I will now exhibit to
you the real representation of major Gardner's con-
duct, and you will determine whether it comports
with the usage of honorable men.
Major Gardner arrived in Boston during my ab-
sence. On my return he had been here several
days ; it was rumored that he had arrived with a.
view to»call me to a personal account, for remarks
which I had made on the Niagara frontier, one year
before. I received the letter bearing date 14th
September, 1815, requesting an answer might be
sent to the bar of the Exchange coffee-house. 1
presumed the object was to draw me into a written
correspondence, where every expression should be
liable to misconstruction ; and that it would be
given to the world through the medium of the
newspapers. I could not answer his letter ; he
had sent no friend to receive any verbal communi-
cation. The idea of making the bar-keeper at
Earle's, and the bar-keeper at the Exchange coffeeT
house, the reciprocal organs of our correspondence,
on a subject that required verbal communications
and statements, was degrading and unofficerlike.
I returned the note with an objection to its mode
of delivery, and a remark relative to its being for-
warded in a gentlemanly way. To any man of
honor the objection was reasonable, and could not
be misunderstood. It was not simply that it should
be forwarded by a gentleman, but that it should be
forwarded in a manner that an honorable man ought
to do it ; through the medium of a friend, who
could receive my verbal answer on the question,
whether I would wave my rank. The next organ
of communication was through the medium of
captain Deacon of the navy. He handed me the
letter, under an impression that he came as the.
friend of major Gardner. I commenced some ob-
servations in relation to the subject, when captain
Deacon apprized me, he had not come as the friend
of major Gardner, but simply to deliver the letter
as a stranger. The letter was in my hands, and the
same difficulty occurred. Major Gardner seemed
determined that his friend should not call so as to
furnish me with the means of giving him at once a
verbal answer. Thus, gentlemen, was this famous
letter put into my hands a second time. Who the
iriend of major Gardner was, I could not conjec-
ture ; he had not even condescended to put me in
possession of his name. Little did I think at the
time, that this redoubtable champion had not passed
the barrier of New York. Little did I imagine
that he had left this business to be conducted by in-
visible spirits, till all the arrangements were made
"by his principal for taking the field. The reasons
of cploncl Snelling's conduct arc sufficiently appa-
rent ; he knew very well what my answer would
be to his request of colonel Gardner. He was per-
fectly aware from what he knew of his character,
that I could not meet him. If he had presented
himself according to all honorable usage, and asked
the simple preliminary question, whether I would
wave my rank, which could have subjected him to
no military tribunal, that I should have answered at
once, I cannot to Gardner. Under these circum-
stances, he felt assured, his reputation would have
been gone, or he must make himself a principal in
the affair. He well knew my staff, and he was well
aware if he had made himself the principal, he
would have been gratified in his wishes. Under
these circumstances, he contrives with the utmost
adroitness to push Gardner on to Boston, to in-
volve himself in a most unpleasant dilemma, while
lie, like some modern cavalier, is enjoying quiet
and repose at Fort Columbus.
The court will now see what situation the afrair
is placed in. A second time the letter is placed in
my hands — there is however no friend to whom
can be communicated my Verbal answer. The
enly mode of communication is still the keeper of
the bar of the Exchange. What under these cir*
cumstances was to be done ? On a simple question
whether I would wave my rank, no military respon-
sibility could be involved. It would however in-
volve a responsibility of another kind, for if my
reply should be that I would not wave it to Gard-
ner, but would to t|ie second — such second would
153
be compelled to fight either myself, or my aids. —
Captain Deacon was probably aware of this, and
did not wish to interest himself in the quarrel ; but
let me say there was an impropriety in his bearing
a letter of this kind as a stranger. Such commu-
nications ought only to be borne by the friends of
the parties, and who have power to settle arrange-
ments.
The letter was thus obtruded upon me in a way
perfectly unofficerlike, a second time, so far as it
respects major Gardner. What course could I
pursue ? I had no doubt the friend of major Gard-
ner was in Boston. I was desirous to see him, for
to him could I state the objections I had to meeting
major Gardner. I returned an answer, which like
the former one, was reduced to writing, so that it
could not be liable to misconstruction. Lieut.
Lee, my aid, of whom I will only say, he is in cha-
racter the very reverse of major Gardner in every
respect — whose gallantry has been twice the sub-
ject of notice from the government, bore this mes-
sage. And here, gentlemen, let me advert to the
singular predicament in which the prisoner is
placed. He had repaired from New York to Bos-
ton, determined —
" To cry havoc, and let sleep the dogs of war."
He had been a long time negociating, but nothing
was effected. Where a major general command-
ing an army, or department, has been assailed in
this manner, it is common for his staff to make it a
personal affair. I will only advert to one celebrated
instance in the revolutionary war — major general
IS*
JLee challenged general Washington ; his aidy
colonel Hamilton, accepted the challenge, and actu-
ally fought general Lee, notwithstanding the dispa-
rity of rank, In the present instance, no challenge
had actually been given ; to that point major Gard-
ner could not be brought. Lieut. Lee, my aid,
called upon major Gardner with a written message
from me. There can be no misconstruction as it
respects my message and the language of lieut.
Lee. The former was reduced to writing ; the
latter Mas verbal. The former was in answer to
the note stating an answer would be given to major
Gardner's letter, whenever his friend should apply
to it. The latter was the verbal remark of lieut,
Lee, "that in his opinion, the view which general
Kipley had of major Gardner's character, was too-
contemptible and despicable to have any written
orrespondence with him."
And what does this redoubtable hero do with
diese expressions. He tamely pockets them. — -
Lieut. Lee had applied to me to allow him to make
it a personal affair ; I had prohibited it. Still he
does every thing in his power to accomplish it ; he
repeats the assertion twice. Major Gardner calls;
for no explanation ; he does not even bristle up in
anger. This champion of his own reputation hears
expressed as the individual opinion of lieut. Lee,
remarks which no man of honor could submit to
for a moment. Under these circumstances one of
my staff made every effort to bring Gardner to a
point, but it was unavailing.
I knew not who the friend of major Gardner was.
135
I presumed that he was with him in Boston ; hi;?
letter was such as to lead to that conclusion. I re-
mained six or seven days awaiting his appeal •ance ;
it then became my determination to place him in
arrest. With this view, I sent an order for
him not to leave Boston until I gave him permis-
sion.
The next day, I placed him in arrest, and sent
him to Governor's island. My view in doing it
was two fold — I intended it should have an effect
on the discipline of the army, and at the same time
lead to a development of all the facts connected
with the case before a military tribunal. This had
become necessary for my own vindication, as well
as to remove the mask from a person whom I
deemed a military impostor. The tongue1 of rumor
is so busy — she operates in so invisible a manner
that I was satisfied, perverted statements would
meet the public ear, and it was my intention by a
development of facts, to put every thing on the
basis of truth.
After the arrest and confinement of the prisoner
to Governor's island, his tone was changed, ffe
there became tame and humble. No longer was
he disposed to growl like the bull dog, but he de-
generates into the passiveness of the spaniel.
Scarcely had he received his orders when he
calls upon colonel Aspinwall, whom no person can
respect more than myself, not for the purpose of
being his champion in battle, but his mediator in
^eaee. He shews to colonel Aspinwall a manu-
script narrative of the campaign, and makes through
136
him a proposition, that if the arrest could be dis-
charged, he would drop all discussions and sup-
press the work, adding, that if it were not done he
should " post me." Colonel A spin wall makes the
first part of the proposition, but the latter he con-
sidered so extremely unofficerlike, that he would
not advert to it. Now this is the sum of the
testimony under this specification. It is not my
purpose to enquire whether the view alluded to, be
correct or incorrect ; I shall not stop to ask whether
censure be gross or outrageous. These words in
the specification are simply descriptive. Major
Gardner is not to be tried for a libel against me, for
I care no more about his views and his narratives,
than I do about the idle wind which I regard not.
The substance of the specification is, the causing a
proposition to be made to an officer of superior-
rank, the terms of which are, if you will discharge
mc from arrest — / will suppress a publication rela-
tive to you. And is not this unofficerlike ? A pri-
soner under such circumstances might as well offer
a pecuniary consideration, a bonus, as to offer the
bargain which was made in the present instance.
It goes with a bribe in one hand, and a menace in
the other. Discharge my arrest, and I will sup-
press. Persevere in your duty, and I will publish.
Is this subordination and discipline ? If this be a
fair example of the state of the army, well may its
situation be considered deplorable. The closing-
specification of this charge I shall simply advert to.
It is a menace too, on a subject which was regularly
! part of my official duties. If at -Ui to be allowed
on the part of an inferior officer, it would at once
strike at the foundation of all military discipline.
I have now, gentlemen, presented you with an
analysis of the evidence applicable to the fourth
charge, and its specifications. You will decide
upon it as honorable men. I believe it to be a fair
one, and a correct exposition of the conduct of the
prisoner. I do not ask you for his conviction.
Consult your own judgments, and pursue a course
which shall conform to your own honorable reputa-
tions and the interests of the army. If the facts
are liable to doubt, incline in favor of the prisoner ;
but where there can be no other alternative, but to
convict him, or consider honorable men as perjur-
ed ; a view to your own reputation, will point out
the course to pursue.
If you are of opinion, that sending the first note
to a bar keeper, with a request that it should be an-
swered, through a similar medium, was proper;
that forcing the second note upon me through the
medium of captain Deacon, when he explicitly
stated he could not appear as the friend of the pri-
soner, was proper :
If you consider the declining to make the affair
personal, with my aid, lieut. Lee, when he gave an
express provocation, as proper :
If you view the conduct of major Gardner in
coming to Boston, and making the object of it a
matter of public notoriety, as proper :
If you deem the proposition made through the
medium of colonel Aspinwall, as proper :
s
138
And if you should consider the menace to me in
relation to an affair of official duty, as decorous and
civil, consistent with subordination and military
usage — then you Mill find the prisoner not guilt)
on all the specifications.
I shall now, gentlemen, advert to the facts of the
Niagara campaign. Painful as is the task to ana-
lyse the conduct of the prisoner, yet the duty be-
comes necessary. General invective, reasoning
upon facts which have no existence, but in a dis-
tempered imagination, will have no effect in form-
ing your judgment. Sober, serious facts, elicited
in the course of the testimony alone, can guide you.
In this campaign, pregnant with so much of interest
to the American people, and so much renown to
those engaged, what was the situation of the pri-
soner ? High in rank, enjoying the confidence ol
his commanding general ; placed in a situation the
most enviable to the young and daring soldier — as
adjutant general, confined to no corps, but from
the very nature of his duty, allowed to range the
whole field of battle for glory and renown. With
such prospects in view, how did he discharge his
duty ? Did he meet danger in the face on even
sanguinary field "?
Let me before I bring before you the facts rela-
tive to his career, state as a preliminary position — -
that according to the usages of war, the duties of
an adjutant general place him proverbially in exposed
situations ; while the duties of a commanding ge-
neral are of a reverse nature. The one places him-
self in the van, as a matter of course, to assist in
139
the formation of the troops ; to rally them if they
break; to encourage and array them in the clash of
conflict ; while it is the duty of the general to sur-
vey all from the rear. The one is borne on the
tide of war ; the other directs it. Under these cir-
cumstances, nothing but a* positive order of the
commanding general can in any service keep an
adjutant general from danger. And if a commanding
general were to give such an order, it would be con-
sidered as absurd by every competent military man.
To apply these principles to the conduct of the
prisoner, at the battle of Chippeway, he is charged
with —
"Charge I.- — Misbehavior in the face of the
enemy.
Specification 1. — For that the said Charles K.
Gardner, at Chippeway, in the province of Upper
Canada, on or about the 5th July, 1814, he then
and there being adjutant general of the x\merican
forces, and his duty as such being to form and lead
the men into action, to animate them with his pre-
sence as chief of the staff, and arrange and direct
the whole staff duties of the field, he, the said
Charles K. Gardner, did wholly omit and neglect
his duties aforesaid ; did not appear at all on the
field, when the troops were engaged, and where his
duty required him to be — but did then and there
hide and conceal himself behind a barn : and when
a shell from the enemy's artillery burst upon the
barn, the said Gardner galloped to the rear, and far-
ther from the enemy.
Charge II. — Cowardice hi the face of the
enemy.
IiO
Specification I. — For that the said Charles K,
Gardner, at Chippeway, in the province of Upper
Canada, on or about the 5th day of July last, he thei}
and there being adjutant general of the American
forces, and his duty as such, being to form and lead the
men into action, to animate them with his presence
as chief of the staff, and to arrange and direct the
whole staff duties of the field, he, the said Charles
K. Gardner, did wholly omit and neglect his duties
aforesaid ; — did not appear at all on the field, when
the troops were engaged, and where his duty re-
quired him to be ; — but did then and there hide and
conceal himself behind a barn ; — and when a shell
from the enemy's artillery burst upon the barn, the
said Gardner galloped to the rear, and farther from
the enemy.
Charge III. — Neglect of duty in the face of
the enemy.
Specification 1. — For that the said Charles K.
Gardner, at Chippeway, in the province of Upper
Canada, on or about the 5th July last, he then and
there being adjutant general of the American forces,
and his duty as such, being to form and lead the
men into action, to animate them with his presence
as chief of the staff, and to arrange and direct the
whole staff duties of the field, he, the said Charles
K. Gardner, did wholly omit and neglect his duty
aforesaid ; and did not appear at all on the field, when
ihe troops were engaged, and where his duty re-
quired him to be — but did, then and there, hide and
conceal himself behind a barn, and when a shell
from the enemy's artillery burst upon the barn, the
141
-aid Gardner galloped to the rear, and farther from
the enemy."
To prove the general allegations, witnesses are
called who served with general Scott's brigade, and
who from their position, must have known the fact
— who testify, that during the action with his bri-
gade, major Gardner was not on the field. Where
and how was he employed during this period ?
During the whole action, he was not within the
range of the enemy's musketry — and nothing was
he exposed to excepting some chance cannon shot
(and those very few) that were directed at general
Scott's brigade in front, and re-echoed through our
camp. Major Vose has testified that the second
brigade occupied a position from half to three quar-
ters of a mile in rear of the battle ground. As
military men, you can easily form an opinion as to
the exposure at that distance with six pounders.
General Brown tells you, that at this time, the
general staff occupied a position in front of the
second brigade ; he further states, that within ten
minutes time, or at most fifteen minutes from the
period, the first order was given to Scott, to
advance — he sent colonel Gardner to direct the
second brigade to be put in motion. As to time,
this statement is not correct. Major Vose testifies
to you that the enomy had given ground in front
before the order to the second brigade to advance
Of consequence the whole action was over with
Scott's brigade. How long the period was from
the time Scott was first ordered to move out, until
the enemy was finally repulsed by his brigade, is
1*2-
aot for mc t© determine — the period was probably
nearly one hour. During the whole of this action,
it appears from the statement of all the witnesses,
major Gardner was not once within the range of
the enemy's musketry,. He was exposed to nothing;
but their random shot,, Once indeed he attempted
to gt> to the front.
sc Lieutenant Elisha BtimbaUr late of the ninth
•regiment infantry, a witness on the part of the pro-
sedition, being sworn, says- —
u At the battle of Chippeway, I was wounded in
*ne commencement of the engagement, before we
had got into line — while we were marching over the
bridge, which obliged me to retire into the rear.- —
1 went into a house on our left, as we marched down
towards the enemy ' as the enemy's artillery were
directed that way, two of their shot went tlirougk
the house ; I then left the house and went into a
bam, about 30 or 40 rods in the rear — while I was
m the barn and binding up my wound, a shell pass-
ing through the roof of the barn and exploded ; I
vent to the door, intending to go still farther to the
rear ; I saw colonel Gardner on horseback, with a
number of Indians and teamsters about him ; at the
time I went to the door, they were ail retiring far-
ther to the rear,'"
Such was the conduct of the adjutant general of
the American forces at the battle of Chippeway.
To do away this testimony, the prisoner has not
even pretended he was in the action. He has not
tried in any way to repel the testimony of a single
witness. General Browjn, major Jones, and major
Worth, do not intimate that he otherwise exposed
himself than I have already stated. Of the dispo-
sition of these persons to serve major Gardner,
there can be no doubt. The first in bis official re-
port, with these facts known to him, extolled his
conduct. Major Gardner in return, on every oc-
casion in bis power, in views of campaigns and cle
fences, eulogises the former. He is bound to do ir
by every obligation which can be imposed on man.
Is there any attempt on the part of the prisoner
to invalidate the testimony -of lieut. Brimhaih No
such attempt has been made. If it had it would
have been fruitless ; the reputation of lieut. Brim-
hall as a soldier, and as a man, stands too hia:h in
comparison for a moment's doubt to be entertained.
If you believe it, you must convict the prisoner of
cowardice at Chippeway. You cannot upon your
oaths and your honor, as men and as soldiers, dis-
pense with its full force, for it stands unimpeached.
I have now finished the analysis of the testimony
applicable to the prisoner's conduct at Chippeway.
I shall now present you a more forcible instance-
Repair with me to the field of Niagara, where the
forces of the contending nations met in a more
deadly strife.
charge r.
" Specification 2. — For that the said Charles K.
Gardner, at a place called Lundy's-lane, in Upper
Canada, on or about the 25th July, 1814, he then
and there being adjutant general of the American
forces, then engaged with the enemy, and his duty
then and there being, as chief of the staff, to form
H4
and organize the troops ; to lead them into actidn,
and to direct and arrange all the staff duties and
proceedings of the field, did then and there wholly
omit to perform these duties, but did take up his
position in the rear of the American forces wholly
out of danger.
CHARGE II.
Specification 2.- — For that the said Charles K*
Gardner, at a place called Lundy's-lane, in Upper
Canada, on or about the 25th July, 1814, he then
and there being adjutant general of the American
forces, then engaged with the enemy, and his duty
then and there being, as chief of the staff, to form
and organize the troops, to lead them into action,
and to direct and arrange all the proceedings of the
field, did then and there wholly omit to perform
these duties — but did take up his position in the
rear of the American forces.
CHARGE III.
Specification 2. — For that the said Charles K,
Gardner, at a place calkd Lundy's-lane, in Upper
Canada, on or about the 25th July, 1814, he, then
and there, being adjutant general of the American
forces, then engaged with the enemy, and his duty
then and there being, as chief of the staff, to form
and organize the troops, to lead them into action,
and to direct and arrange all the proceedings of the
field, did, then and there, wholly omit to perfonr
these duties — but did take up his position in the
rear of the American forces, and wholly out of
danger."
The adjutant general of the army had marched
with it from Qucenstom Wlien the action c©n>
mi need he mounted his horse, and gave orders for
some of the brigades to move to the field. He
rides a distance of nearly three miles ; his com-
manding general deems it necessary to rush into
closest combat. Major Gardner halts at the dis-
tance of sixty or eighty yards in the rear, and out
of danger, till the action is over ; he retires with
the army to camp. The next morning he is early
seen distributing orders to the several corps, and
he finally takes up his line of march with the army
to Fort Erie, where he remains until the enemy in-
vest it, when he is directed to repair to major gen.
Brown. True, he states to his commanding gene^
ralthat on the afternoon previous to the action, he was
indisposed! Gentlemen, I appeal to you as sol-
diers, whether this excuse can be admitted as an
apology ? It is not every species of indisposition
which will justify an officer in remaining from the
field. It is not a slight head-ache, a palpitation of
the heart, or a trifling cold, that can warrant an
officer of high rank in avoiding a field, on which
depended the safety and honor of the American
arms. But let me ask if it was any thing but mere
pretext ? How could colonel Gardner ride such a
distance to the field ? How could he remain so
long in the rear ? These facts in my view, are con-
clusive. If a brave man were placed in such a po-
sition, would he not wish for action ? Would notthe
excitement of battle remove his pains and his ago-
nies more than by remaining in a position where he
could be of no earthly service "? and when he could
hear nothing but the groans of the dying. Wl>er<-
T
146
is the report of the surgeon that he was sick ? You
have no evidence but his own declaration to major
general Brown, and his own declarations are not
evidence for him. He complained of being sick —
it is the common pretext of cowards when danger
is nigh. Should a soldier in the ranks make the
same pretext, when arriving within one hundred
yards of the enemy, and fall to the rear without or-
ders, he would be shot for it ? And is an officer
second in importance to none but the commander
in chief, to avoid danger with impunity, when un-
der the same circumstances a subordinate officer
would be punished ? The facts shortly stnad, with
reference to this specification, that major Gardner
pretending to be sick, rides to the field ; when
there, he perhaps expected his general would take
up his position in the rear, and under those circum-
stances he intended to perform the same part he
did at Chippeway : General Brown, however,
went into the action, and fear prevented major
Gardner from following.
Gentlemen, some of you are old soldiers, and
have seen a variety of service. I appeal to you for the
correctness of the remarks lam about to make. Did
you ever know an officer of any rank conduct him-
self as major Gardner did on this occasion, withoui
beingdeemed a coward? Were you ever acquainted
with an instance where an officer of rank in a se-
verely contested action, and whose duties required
him in the thickest of the fight, that remained on
horseback a short distance in the rear, upon a pre-
text of illness, who did not by such acts loose all
pretences to military reputation ?
Have you not, on the other hand, known repeat
cd instances of officers leaving their sick beds and
repairing to the field ? The battle ended, they have
again retired to their litter or their tents.
How was it on this very occasion with a host of
gallant men ? With Brady, with Jessup, and Lea-
venworth, and others I could allude to, if delicacy
allowed it. The two first were severely wounded*
and in excruciating pain, the latter was also wound-
ed ; but they scorned to retire. Their blood
flowed freely, but their honor retained them. At
that very moment the adjutant general of the forces
was skulking from danger under pretence of indis-
position, and riding about in the rear ! ! !
If major Gardner was sick, why repair to the
field ? If he was unable to perform his duties in the
fight, why not return to camp ? A stronger case
of cowardice, of neglect of duty, and of misbehavior
could not well be imagined. General Brown and
colonel Jones to be sure, testify they never knew
any misbehavior or faultering on his part in the
presence of the enemy. There is a conclusive an-
swer to their testimony. They never saw him in
the face of the enemy and exposed to his fire —
when I say in the face of the enemy, I mean within
striking distance of him. I do not allude to
spent cannon shot at the distance of half a mile —
nor do I allude to the spent balls of musketry.
Every military man knows that these arc not suffi-
cient to frighten an old woman.
The intermediate period of the campaign is not
made a matter of charge. Major Gardner during
iiS
the pressure of the siege at Fort Erie, was absent
with general Brown. Although attached to the
army, and not to the person of the commanding
general, he left the army and passed his recess at a
distance from it. I do not pretend to censure him
for it. It was, it appears, the direction of general
Brown, and major Gardner was not responsible.
CHARGE I.
" Specification 3. — For that the said Charles K.
Gardner, at a place called Fort Erie, in Upper Cana-
da, on or about the 17th September, 1814, he then
and there being adjutant general of the American
forces, as aforesaid, and it being his duty to assist,
to form, and to direct the troops, and to be with
them in the heat of the action, did take his position in
or near a ravine, between Fort Erie and the woods,
and wholly out of danger; and in this situation, when
directed by major general Brown, commander in
chief of the American forces on that occasion, to
communicate certain orders to general Ripley, then
engaged with the enemy — lie, the said Charles K.
Gardner, did employ another officer, to wit, captain
Newman S. Clark, to expose himself to the fire of
the enemy, and to communicate the said orders,
while he, the said Charles K. Gardner, took special
e.are to keep out of ganger.
en \vj.:v, ii.
Specification 3. — For that the said Charles K.
Gardner, at a place called Fort Erie, in Upper Ca-
nada, on or about the 17th September, 1814, he
then and there being adjutant general of the Ame-
"kcan forces, as aforesaid, and h being his dutv to
Ii9
assist to form and direct the troops, and to be with
them in the heat of the action, did take his position
in a ravine, between Fort Erie and the woods, and
wholly out of danger — and in this situation, when
directed by major general Brown, commander in
chief of the American forces on that occasion, to
communicate certain orders to general Ripley, then
engaged with the enemy, did employ another offi-
cer to expose himself to the fire of the enemy, and
communicate the said orders, while he, the said
Charles K. Gardner, took special care to keep out
of danger.
CHARGE HI.
Specification 3. — For that the said Charles K.
Gardner, at a place called Fort Erie, in Upper Ca-
nada, on or about the 17th September, 1814, he*,
then and there, being adjutant general of the Ame-
rican forces, as aforesaid, and it being his duty to
form and direct the troops, and be with them in the
heat of the action, did take his position in a ravine,
between Fort Erie and the woods, and wholly out
of danger — and in this situation, when directed by
major general Brown, commander in chief of the
American forces on that occasion, to communicate
certain orders to general Ripley, then engaged with
the enemy, did employ another officer to expose
himself to the fire of the enemy, and communicate
the said orders — while he, the said Charles K. Gard
ner, took special care to keep out of danger."
The affair of the sortie next forms the subject oI~
investigation. The facts involved in it so far a,:
they are applicable to major Gardner, evince the
150
same spirit and feeling's which have thus far mark-
ed him during the campaign. I disclaim all idea
of bearing upon the prisoner, excepting so far as
the facts shall warrant me. Let him employ invec-
tive, it is seldom the language of truth. Let him
pursue the course of idle declamation — I shall cool-
ly march forward in that path where the testimony
directs the way.
The testimony of major general Brown, as I un-
derstood it, when delivered in court, was that the in-
tention of a sortie was not communicated at all ex-
cepting to colonel Jones, the evening previous to
its taking place. If I am incorrect in quoting it, the
court will set me right. This, nevertheless, was a
mistake in point of fact — for it was known to most of
the [officers a long time previous. General Porter and
colonel Wood had been engaged in arranging the
plan of It, and the testimony of colonel Bcedel and
captain Kirby both coincide in establishing the
fact, that the officers were generally apprized of it.
Under these circumstances, general Brown has
estified to you that the chief of the staff his first
confidential officer, was not apprised of it. He does
not attempt to disclose the reason why a neglect of
so cutting a nature to the feelings of a soldier, was
practised towards colonel Gardner. Facts speak
more loudly than testimony — they are irresistable
in their nature. We see on the one hand, a gene-
ral officer disclosing his plans to the officers of the
ramp, and at the same time keeping them secret
from the officer, who from his situation was most
-v"'! e^ to confidence, and whom he had eulogised
131
in the highest manner. On the other, at u critical
moment of the action, we beheld the same major
Gardner surrendering up the immediate command
of the army to an officer who but a short time be-
fore had been the object of censure. This mark
of confidence at the time, was hailed as the pledge
of harmony — dangerously wounded in conflict —
borne from that field oscillating between life and
death, little did I imagine that through the medium
of negative approbation, an attempt would be made
to injure my memory if I fell, and my reputation
if I survived.
I return to the subject of the sortie. The posi-
tion of the enemy's batteries was in the woods ;
general Brown with his staff, took up their position
in the first place, in the open ground between Fort
Erie and the woods. The attack commenced by
the volunteers on our left ; general Miller's bri-
gade entered the woods, nearly perpendicular to
Fort Erie. The twenty-first regiment received
orders to enter the woods near battery No. 3, the
chain of works and batteries extended some dis-
tance into the woods. Under these circumstances
as the troops advanced, the general staff moved
forward. Where was major Gardner at the time ?
In his usual station in the rear. General Brown
gave him two orders to communicate to general
Ripley. Was not here occasion for an adjutant
general to go forward ? Did this not afford an op-
portunity to major Gardner to expose himself?
He communicates neither order. Captain Kirby's
Testimony is express to this point. He procures
colonel Snelling, if I do not forget, to transmit the
one, and captain Clarke the other, and immediately
retires to the rear ! Captain Clarke tells you there
were some spent balls which flew at the time ; this
probably had an effect in producing the retrograde
movement ! I say nothing upon the manifest im-
propriety of committing orders to the brigade major.
An adjutant general is not only bound to transmit
the order, but to see it executed. To take off* the
staff of brigades for that purpose, would be to de-
stroy the whole army organization. But this is of
trifling consequence in comparison with other cir -
eumstances. Captain Clarke states that after bat-
tery No. 3, was carried, and the enemy repulsed,
colonel Gardner came to him with an order, he be-
ing in rear of me, and requested him to convey it to
me — that at this time, nothing but spent balls fell
in the spot where they stood, but the firing was
heavy and incessant on their left. That colonel
Gardner appeared hasty and impatient, and anxious
that some other person should carry the orders, and
that according to the witness's impression, he was
under the influence of fear. That on soliciting
captain Clarke, he hesitated, because he thought i*-
impioper to convey the orders of the commander
in chief. That he finally complied, and colonel
Gardner returned to the rear. That this order was
sent while general Ripley was moving with a
column to the attack. Isnotthisstatementtrueand
tm impeached "? General Brown in his report states
that he gave such an order ; so far, therefore, docs
the statement of the commanding general corrobo-
rate the testimony of captain Clarke. If you be-
i 53
lieve him, you must convict the prisoner of cow .
ardice in the battle of the sortie. The order to
me was to assume the direction of the troops. —
Major Gardner not only ought to have brought the
order, but it was necessary he should report to me,
being invested with the immediate command.
Captain Kirby tells you that the troops were dis-
persed and deranged. An adjutant general and his
assistants were peculiarly necessary to assist in their
reorganization. It was his special duty. By
the command of the whole devolving on me,
I had no staff but my aid ; for my brigade
major was attached to the brigade, and not
to my personal suite. But, gentlemen, do you not
see that this order which was sent, was in conse
quence of the adjutant general having neglected his
duty, and his commander being apprised of it.-—
Who is to take the general direction of troops in
action but the adjutant general, subject to the or-
ders of the commander in chief? If it were not
a principle as universal, and as old as the office, in
every army, still it would be a duty, since it it is
so laid down in your own regulations, to which 1
refer the court. It is the duty of the ad-
jutant general to assist in forming columns,
in leading them, in rallying fugitives, in bringing
up second lines, reserves, and all the vast variety
of duties of the: field. Did he perform any of them
at the sortie ? General Miller, colonel Bedel, and
lieutenant Lee, tell you he was not with the firs,.
brigade. Captain Kirby and colonel Brooke did
not see him in action. Captain Irvine, who ti a •
versed the whole line, never met with major Gard -
r
154
ner. General Brown, colonel Jones, and colonel
Snelling, never pretended he was in the action —
excepting col. Jones, whotestifi.es he was in battery
No. 3, after it was carried, when some spent balls
fell around it. But according to the testimony of
captain Clarke, he soon retreated. I shall only
make one remark in relation to the testimony of
major Worth. He was in two actions with major
Gardner on the Niagara frontier. He does not pre-
send he was ever in danger, or exposed. Bui
major Worth refers to the conduct of major Gard-
ner at Chrvstler's fields.
He then states that the twenty-fifth regiment was
warmly engaged, and pursued by the enemy, and
that major Gardner was making great exertions to
leform and correct the line of his regiment, or in
other words it xvas broken and retreating in con-
■ fusion before the enemy, with major Gardner at the
head of it ! This is not a very enviable descrip-
tion of the only time major Gardner was seen by
major Worth on the field, at the head of his corps.
It would seem that this retreating at Chrystler's
field was so serious a thing to major Gardner, that.
it has kept him out of the range of musket shot ever
since.
He does not state that he rallied the regiment,
. jid again led it against the enemy. If such weir
; lie fact, from his friendship for the prisoner, he
would not have omitted it. So the fair presump-
tion is, that major Gardner and his troops retreated
together.
I have now, gentlemen, gone through with the
different actions of the campaign, in which major
Gardner was in the rear of the army. I wish for
ibo
its honor, and from sympathy to the prisoner, that
there was some solitary fact to brighten up the
cheerless gloom which surrounds his military cha-
racter. But it is all dark and desolate. Every
disposition has been evinced to assist him with tes-
timony ; but still it is futile and unavailing. At
Chippeway, where colonel Towson tells you he
ought to have been on the field, he took up his po-
sition from half to three quarters of a mile in the
rear. He here intended to cover himself under th
shelter of his commanding general. That pretext
will not avail him, for his duty was in the van. At
Niagara, where his general went closer into action,
major Gardner, on the pretext of illness, remained
in the rear, and under the cover of the hill. At
the siege of Fort Erie, he was absent. At the sor-
tie, where his duty required him to lead the
columns, to direct the field, and to reorganize the
troops, he takes up his position out of danger.
And to crown the whole, when his duties were
assigned to a junior general, and he was directed
to carry the order, he could not gather nerve
enough to perform it.
This is the state of the testimony. For myself,
I commisserate this man. I can regret as much as
any one, that he should have been bolstered up by
artificial praise, to fall at once so low.
Major Gardner in his defence, has adverted to
many topics, which have not arisen from the evi-
dence. He has indulged in invective, for reason-
ing was impracticable. I have endeavored to shun
his example, and I trust there is not a single re-
remark injurious to the prisoner, which has not
naturally grown out of the testimony.
The story of the prisoner's achievements in the
156
Niagara campaign, is brief and replete with igno-
miny. We no where find him performing his ap-
propriate duties : — to lead a detachment through
the woods at the investment of Fort Erie : — to
keep quietly three quarters of a mile in rear of the
army at Chippeway, until the enemy had retreated,
excepting in one solitary instance : — in going to the
front and taking shelter with fugitive Indians and
teamsters behind a barn : — and at the explosion of
a shell, galloping rapidly to the rear : — to remain
under cover at Niagara during the carnage of that
dreadful conflict, out of danger and unexposed :
simply advancing five rods to a wounded officer,
who was retiring to our rear : — to dispute with the
Inspector General relative to the right to superintend
the prisoners in the rear : — to leave Fort Erie after
that fortress was invested, and pass his recess plea-
santly in the country, beyond the sound of its
cannon : — to keep again in the rear of the troops
at the sortie, and out of danger : — when ordered to
carry orders into the fight, employing subordinate
officers to perform it : — neglecting at Niagara to
secure the captured cannon, and at the sortie to re-
organize, arid reform, and precipitate the troops
upon the enemy's camp in their moment of panic.
This is the elorious galaxy of his actions ! These
nre the splendid monuments of his renown. — I forgot
myself. He attempted to throw upon others the
responsibility for his own neglects : — he endeavored,
to pilfer from them, the fair exposition of their re-
nown ! These objects could not be accomplished
without a struggle, and the dissentions it has pro-,
ductd, have distracted the army.
157
Gentlemen of the Court,
I have now closed the analysis of the testimo-
ny ; I shall simply address one remark to you. As
it regards myself, I have made out the case I sta-
ted. I asserted that major Gardner was a coward
— I have proved him so. To me your decision is
perfectly indifferent. For aught that concerns my-
self, I should be perfectly willing he should be ac-
quitted. But let me tell you that the passions of
the day are temporary ; truth is eternal. As well
might you attempt to convulse all nature, as to im-
pede her march; for it is as steady as time, and du-
rable as eternity. Simply then have a care to your-
selves in making your decision. Acquit the priso-
ner if possible. Let all the best sympathies of your
nature be enlisted in his behalf. Give to the tes-
timony which operates in his favor, if there be any,
the best possible construction for his interests. But
gentlemen, act righteously. Look to future conse-
quences, as well as to the present moment. If
you condemn the prisoner without sufficient testi-
mony, your own reputations will be involved. If
you acquit in a case where the evidence is strongs
irresistible and conclusive ; it will hereafter become
the subject of the sincerest regret. Weigh well
then the testimony in the case. You are bound by
the most solemn ligaments which can be impose d
between the soldier and his country ; — the man aitd
his God ; — your honor and your oaths-.
THJL. RKD
jus
■ A
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11