PROCEEDINGS OF SEVERAL GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL, HELD, By order of Brigadier-general SMALLWOOD, ON THE TRIALS OF Col. J. CARVIL HALL, AND Capt. EDWARD NORWOOD.
ANNAPOLIS. Printed by FREDERICK GREEN. M.DCC.LXXIX.
To the PUBLIC.
HAVING the strongest assurances that my conduct, relative to colonel J. C. Hall's prosecution and trial, is March, 1778, has been grossly misrepresented in Maryland—to set the matter in a clear light, and do myself justice, I have been induced to publish the trial, from which the impartial will judge of the expediency of the measure, and the propriety of my conduct.
The public will also judge of the propriety of the Colonel's conduct, and how far he was justifiable in quitting his regiment, and whilst he was drawing the public pay, neglecting his duty or rendering little or no service for near six months, because he did not chuse to act under my command, notwithstanding his conduct was censured and mine approved in every point, not only by the commander in chief, but also by a very full board of general officers, whose sense was taken on that occasion.
EARLY on Tuesday morning, the 17th instant, I received intelligence of eleven men deserting to the enemy, three of whom were intercepted by parties disposed for that purpose, and between two and three o'clock P. M. that day, I was informed that the remaining eight were concealed by a quaker, about seven miles from this place, up the Brandywine, before which, I had detached seven horse and two parties of foot on each side the Brandywine to intercept them, and a party of nine horse, detached with a party of foot, to remove, and if necessary to destroy the forage below Newcastle and Port-Penn, left me destitute of a single light horse fit for duty, the towns-men having removed their horses into the country upon our arriving here; it was therefore out of the power of the quarter-master to procure horses for this purpose, which reduced me to the disagreeable necessity of ordering one horse from each officer in the division who kept two or more, which I judged supernumerary, and that the public had a right to their service upon such an emergency, though I first sent captain Brown to apply to the colonels for a horse a piece, and informed, there was no other probable method of mounting a party and effecting the purpose, which required the greatest dispatch; through mistake captain Brown informed colonel Hall, he had my orders to take one of his [Page 4] horses for this purpose, which I at first did not direct or intend, only in case of refusal, otherways should have (in the first instance) issued an order to that purport; colonel Hall refused his horse, which induced me to issue the enclosed order * to the quarter-master, which colonel Hall refused to let him comply with, unless he did it at the r [...]sk of his life. Viewing myself as a party, I cannot with propriety approve or disapprove the sentence, therefore have transmitted it, with the proceedings of the court, to your Excellency for that purpose, and have the honour to remain, with sincere regard,
PROCEEDINGS OF A GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL,
Held at Wilmington, the 20th day of March, 1778, by order of Brigadier-general SMALLWOOD, on the TRIAL of Colonel J. CARVIL HALL; whereof Colonel RICHARDSON was president, and • Col. DAVID HALL, , • Lieut, col. RAMSEY, , • Lieut, col. WOOLFORD, , • Lieut, col. FORD, , • Major HOWARD, , • Major STEWARD, , • Capt. PATTEN, , • Capt. WINDER, , • Capt. ANDERSON, , • Capt. ROXBURGH, , • Capt. BEALE, and ,
and • Capt. GHISELIN, Were members, who were all duly sworn.
COLONEL J. CARVIL HALL, charged with refusing to comply with a general order, issued on an emergency, and calculated to aid the service, which at that juncture could not otherwise be remedied, and for un-officer-like behaviour in threatening to blow out the brains of any officer who should head a party to execute the same.
To which charge colonel Hall being called to answer, pleads not guilty. In support of the change Dr. Montgomery was produced as an evidence, and being sworn declar [...] it as follows, viz. That a few days ago, upon his [...]ing to the [...] where general Smallwood and some [Page 6] other officers were, there appeared a considerable agitation, occasioned, as he then learned, by some person having given information, that several deserters, who had left the garrison the night before, were concealed in a countryman's house, about seven miles from town; whereupon the general gave orders, that they should go and seize horses wherever they could find them, his, or any other officers they could get, to mount a party to endeavour to apprehend the deserters; soon after some person came back and reported to the general, that colonel Hall refused to let his horse go, the general then gave peremptory orders that they should go and take a horse from any officer who had more than one; after a while a person returned to the general, and told him, that colonel Hall absolutely refused, and threatened to blow out the brains of any person who would come to take a horse from him; the general then sent an officer, lieutenant M‘Pherson, at the head of a party under arms, and ordered him to bring a horse from colonel Hall at all events.
Doctor Montgomery being questioned by colonel Hall, whether the general's order, with regard to his own horses, were confined to one, or extended to them all, answers, he thinks it was confined to one. The doctor being farther asked, how many horses the general had in his stables or pasture, answers, he thinks three, exclusive of the brigade major's and the doctor's own, which was then lame with the scratches. Colonel Hall further asked the doctor, whether Mrs Marshall, at whose house the general lodges, had any horses, who answers, she kept one all winter, but whether he was then in town or not he could not tell.
Captain Brown, of the artillery, was next produced at an evidence, who upon oath declares, That a few days ago, upon his informing general Smallwood that seven of his company, and one of the second regiment, who had deserted the night before, were concealed about seven miles out of town, he directed him to collect a number of officers to go after the deserters, and also to get horses, to [Page 7] take one of his first, and then go to the other officers, beginning with the colonels commandant, for others; that he thereupon went to colonel J. Carvil Hall, and told him that the general had sent him there to take one of his horses to go after some deserters he had heard of, that the general had given one of his own, and had ordered him to go to the other officers, beginning with the colonels commandant, for others.
Colonel Hall then answered, he did not know any right the general had to order or take his horses, he might dispose of his own as he pleased, but that he should not have his, and he would not let them go. Colonel Hall then asked captain Brown, if he did not tell him at the same time, that the general had a right to command him and his services, but he had no authority over his horses, they were his private property; he answered yes, he spoke words to that effect.
Lieutenant Brown, of the light horse, upon oath saith, that he was with captain Brown when he told the general about his deserters, upon which the general asked him (lieutenant Brown) if he had any horse to spare to go after them, that he answered he had not, that they were all upon duty who were fit to do duty.
Colonel Sheriff, quarter-master to the division, was next sworn, who saith, That general Smallwood, on Tuesday last, sent him the following order, viz. Ordered, that colonel Sheriff impress one horse from each officer in the division who keeps two or more. That upon his receiving the order, he immediately endorsed it as follows, viz. Sir, 'tis the general's express orders to begin with the colonels of the regiments, and act as within ordered; which endorsement he directed to Mr. Edmondson, a waggon-master belonging to the division.
Colonel Sheriff was then asked, whether he thinks horses could not have been got sufficient for the party, without taking the officers horses; answers, he thinks they could not have been got in less than two hours.
[Page 8]Mr. Edmondson, brigade waggon-master, was next sworn, who saith, That colonel Sheriff delivered him the orders above recited, which he shewed to colonel Hall, that colonel Hall told him he should have none of his, upon which he returned to colonel Sheriff, and colonel Sheriff directed him to inform the general of what had passed; the general then ordered him to return to colonel Hall, and tell him, if he did not let his horse come, that he, this deponent, should take a party and bring one down; he informed colonel Hall of this order, to which colonel Hall replied, that he or any other person who should head the party, he would put a bullet through; that he then returned to the general, and informed him what colonel Hall had said.
Lieutenant M‘Pherson being duly sworn, declareth, That on Tuesday last general Smallwood sent for him, and upon his coming to his quarters, the general met him in the passage, and ordered him to go and fetch his guard, upon which he went to the back yard, where he found the guard parading, and brought them to the front door, and then went in to the general and told him the guard was ready, whereupon he sat down and wrote the following orders, viz. Sir, You are ordered with the guard immediately to proceed and impress one of colonel Hall's horses, and bring him here without delay, as there are some deserters, if dispatch is used, may be taken. Herein fail not, and this shall be your justification.
After receiving the order, he went at the head of the guard to colonel Hall's quarters, where upon enquiry, he found the colonel was rode out, upon which he went to the colonel's stables, and looking in at the window he saw a horse saddled, which the forage-master (who was also sent by the general) said was the colonel's horse; this deponent then ordered the guard to break open the door, which was locked, but upon their entering they found it was not colonel Hall's horse, though immediately afterwards colonel Hall's horse came running up to the stable [Page 9] door, having a saddle on but no bridle, the deponent then caused the soldiers to catch the horse, and they returned with the horse under guard to the general.
The following evidences were then called upon by colonel Carvil Hall, viz.
Captain Steward, of the artillery, being sworn, declareth, That he was at colonel Hall's quarters when captain Brown came for his horse, and that he understood his application to be founded upon an absolute order to take the colonel's horse; that the colonel refused to let him have his horse, saying, that the general might command his services, but his horse he had no right to, he was his private property, and some time afterwards, (this deponent thinks after captain Brown went away) colonel Hall told him, and some others that were present, that he had already lent his horse.
Lieutenant Hoops was next called upon, who upon oath declareth, That a few days ago, upon hearing that some deserters were concealed a little way out of town, and that the general wanted a party of officers to go after them, he went to colonel Hall's quarters with an intention of borrowing a horse from his paymaster, and finding the paymaster not at home, he mentioned his business to the colonel, who told him to send to the stable and get his horse for that purpose; he sent accordingly and got the horse and carried him off, and having hitched him to a post until the party would be ready, sometime afterwards he understood the horse was at the general's, where he went and requested he might ride him, which the general, after some hesitation, agreed to. Lieut. Hoops was asked by the court, whether or no he had borrowed the horse before the general had sent for him? Answered, he did not know.
The court adjourns to 9 o'clock to-morrow morning.
March 21. The court met according to adjournment. D [...]ctor Montgomery was called upon a second time at the desire of general Smallwood, who [...]sked him the following questions, viz. Whether or no he did not apprehend from [Page 10] the representation made by captain Brown, there was not a necessity offending off immediately? Answered, that from the representation he had of the matter he thought it of the utmost importance that a party should be sent off immediately.
Quest. 2d. Does Mr. Montgomery recollect that I expressed my doubts that horses could not be got unless the officers horses were taken, and therefore ordered captain Brown to take one of mine, and apply to the other officers for theirs, as the only probable method of mounting the party? Answers yes.
Quest. 3d. Does Mr. Montgomery recollect the state which my horses were in, and his, and whether any of them were fit for the expedition, but the one I ordered? Answers, he thinks none were fit but the one.
Captain Brown was next called upon and questioned by the general. Does captain Brown recollect that I expressed my doubts of obtaining horses so speedily as might be necessary, unless the officers horses were taken, and that I directed him to take one of mine, and apply to the colonels for one a piece, and to the other officers for their horses, which must be pressed, as there was no probable way of getting horses otherways so speedily as it was necessary? Answers, yes, I remember it well.
Quest. How long does captain Brown think colonel Hall's refusing his horse delayed the party, and at what o'clock does he think he made the application? Answers, he thinks he made the application between two and three o'clock, and that his refusal delayed the party better than an hour.
Colonel Hall then asked captain Brown, whether he thinks his horse was indispensably necessary for the forming that party? Answers, he thinks he was.
Quest. 2d. How many did the party consist of? Answers, twelve, exclusive of the guide.
Quest. 3d. Colonel Hall then asked captain Brown, whether he viewed his horse as a talis-man. or whether there was any particular virtue in the number twelve? Answers, [Page 11] he did not think there was any particular virtue in the number twelve, but thinks three or four more would have been necessary.
The general then asked captain Brown, whether or no several officers were not waiting who could not go for want of horses? Answers, there were three or four who did not go for want of horses
Colonel Sheriff was then asked by the general, does colonel Sheriff apprehend he could have got fifteen or sixteen horses in the town in the course of that afternoon, without taking the officers horses agreeable to the order given him by the general? Answers, he thinks they could not have been got.
Colonel HALL'S DEFENCE.
THE first part of the charge is disobeying a general order, I deny that any general order was ever delivered me; it is true captain Brown came to me and told me the general had sent him to take one of my horses. I viewed his calling upon me before he went to my stable and took my horse, which from his orders, if legal, he had a right to do, a piece of politeness. I confess so extraordinary a mandate hurt my feelings, and I forbid him. The second order, which was in writing, was brought by a waggon-master, and was by no means addressed to me, and which he also might have executed without ever calling upon me. The third and last order was similar to the other two, and which the officer put in execution by breaking open my stable door, without ever seeing me, as the others might have done theirs. If the court are of opinion that any of these were orders, for the breach of which an officer can be punished, I must confess hitherto I have been ignorant what an order means. But suppose the order was to me, I was not bound to obey it, it was unmilitary, and a precedent of the most dangerous consequence. Military authors of the first reputation agree, that the most ready and implicit obedience is due to every military order or command respecting duty, but at the same time positively [Page 12] deny the right, and strictly forbid the exertion of power to interfere in private property. The general might have prohibited me from drawing forage for my horse, he might have forbid my keeping a horse in the garrison, I mean as commander of the post, but so long as I was permitted to keep a horse, he was my own private property to every intent and meaning, as fully as my coat, my shirt, or any thing else in my trunk, and as I have two coats, he might by the same rule of right, i. e. power, have ordered my trunk to be broke open, and one of them delivered to some naked soldier who could not do duty for the want of one. If I am not very much mistaken, I remember to have seen an order of his Excellency's, expressly confining the power of impressing horses to the quarter-master-general, or his deputy, who may descend deputising till it comes to the deputy waggon-master's deputy's servant, who shall have a right, if this precedent is established, to dismount any general, except the commander in chief, who may be so unlucky as to give him offence; for if the quarter-master had an authority to impress an officer's horse at all, he had it independent of general Smallwood, who by the above order appears to be excluded that right—if then the quarter-master's right to impress officers horses cannot be admitted with any degree of consistency, and the general never was invested with that right. I know not on what military principle he can justify his ordering the quarter-master to impress my horse, and much less his aiding him with an armed force to break open my door. The very idea of military force in such cases is a denial of the right, it supposes an urgent necessity, requiring the immediate exertion of power to deprive an individual of his right for the greater good of the who [...]e, because, if every one is obliged by law to furnish the general with a horse on demand, he has no need of an armed force, as they are punishable by the civil law for a refusal. The distinction in a civil and miliary view will not hold here, for when I entered the service of my country, by no act of mine did I subject my [Page 13] private property to the disposal of my commanding officer. It follows then, if the general had no right to take my horse, I had a right to refuse him, so that admitting that the order was to me, I was not obliged to obey it, and consequently am unjustly arrested; but as the last charge, however illy grounded, may carry a small degree of criminality in the opinion of some of the members, I must beg their indulgence a little longer, while I make a few observations on that head. I acknowledged above I opposed the execution of the general's pointed orders to take my horse, but I could not disobey them, they were not directed to me, and roused by the arbitrary and illegal stretch of power, I did, upon the same principles that induced me first to take up arms in defence of the rights of mankind, threaten to defend it at the expence of the invader's life, but on the first moment's cool reflection gave up the resolution, because the illegality of the proceedings might be determined at much less expence than the life of a man, who, perhaps, thought he was in the execution of his duty. I had lent one horse to lieutenant Hoops to go upon the expedition far which he was demanded, and purposely to avoid the execution of my threat, mounted the other somewhat earlier than necessary, to train the regiment. Upon the whole, if the court finds me not guilty of a breach of order, or that those orders were illegal, I shall readily rest the justification of my conduct in the third charge, on an appeal to their own breasts, and to every one whose feeling renders him worthy a commission in defence of a cause the most virtuous that ever men were engaged in.
What inducement can any here present have to sacrificing the ease and indulgence of retirement to the dangers and hardships of war? What but the generous love of freedom and the happiness of their country; and what mighty reward do they expect for all their toils? They ask nothing but an applauding conscience and an approving country, and however small in the opinion of those whose [Page 14] views never extend beyond the narrow circle of self, it is enough. Shall this my reward then be arbitrarily and wantonly taken from me, and shall I not complain? What merit have I where I have no will? He took that by force which I had voluntarily offered; I know there are none of you but in my circumstances would feel it a cruel and unprovoked injury; however, I will take up no more of your time, but leave to your impartial consideration, and cheerfully submit it to your determination, only requesting that you would not consider it merely as a matter of dispute between general Smallwood and myself, but as a precedent replete with despotism, and in its consequences materially affecting every officer in the army.
The court with respect to the first charge exhibited against colonel Hall, are of opinion, that the order issued in that instance was not military, nor conveyed through a military channel; that the general, by conveying it through the hands of the quarter-master, in the nature of an impressment, not even addressed to colonel Hall, was an actual confession that he had not a right to expect or exact a compliance with the order by virtue of his superior command. And with respect to the second charge, although the court does by no means approve of colonel Hall's intentions or threats of resisting by force the officer sent to execute the order, yet as they can easily account for it, from the keen and sensible feelings of a person in his situation, and as a few moments cool reflection determined him to act otherwise, we acquit him of un-officer-like behaviour: and are upon the whole unanimously of opinion, that he is not guilty of the charge exhibited against him, and therefore acquit him with honour.
AS I was not privy to, or favoured with a copy of colonel Hall's defence to the court, till after the sentence [Page 15] was handed in to me, in justice therefore to myself I am bound to make the following remarks, as I think several parts of his defence exceptionable and unjust.
Colonel Hall has taken great pains to justify his conduct to the court-martial, and has made use of a number of specious arguments for that purpose, wherein it may be observed, that all his reasonings are more properly addressed to the passions than to the justice and judgment of those gentlemen who composed the court: truth and rectitude need no gloss to recommend themselves to the candid mind, and notwithstanding such splendid argumentation, the case in hand illustrates itself, and rests entirely upon its own merits, as set forth in the evidence produced.
That colonel Hall disobeyed my orders, is a fact that the colonel himself does not controvert; that his compliance with them would have aided the service, is as notorious; but whether those orders were in themselves unmilitary, or issued in an unmilitary way, it certainly was not the business of a good officer to oppose their operation. As colonel Hall seems to be conversant with military authors, he will find several who pronounce, that officers have not even a right to declare a general order, which has a tendency to promote the service, though issued out of the common line, illegal or oppressive, till such order has been carried into execution, and its effects make it appear to be so. If general orders of this nature are to be opposed in one instance, they may in a thousand, and from such a precedent the consequence might be, that an officer in time of action might refuse to obey the orders of his commanding officer at the head of a line of battle, because the orders were not consonant with his opinion, and that they were unmilitary, or issued in an unmilitary manner. Such a disposition for cavilling might be admissible at the bar of a county court, but can have no tendency to promote the service, or create a good officer. If the commander in chief had issued orders upon a similar emergency, [Page 16] directing the quarter-master-general to impress one horse from each officer in the line, who had from two to six, agreeable to their respective rank and limitation, not to mention supernumeraries, and any officer had refused to let the quarter-master-general put that order in execution, I should judge and pronounce him guilty of a breach of a general order, though the order was not particularly addressed to him.
Every order given out by a commanding officer, which in its operation is general, and calculated to aid the service, is and ought to be obeyed as a general order, and will be respected as such by every good officer, who would make a point of sacrificing his private views to the good of his country.
Horses were to be impressed from such officers, who had more than one, as they could no otherways be had; no officer was pointed out by name, and consequently the order could not be particularly directed to any one; they who were p [...]ssessed of more than one, came within the intent and description of this order; colonel Hall among others was affected by it; but he tells us he will not obey the order; 'tis unmilitary, 'tis a bad precedent, 'tis tyranny, 'tis despotism. But if colonel Hall will again peruse his military authors of the first reputation, he will there find (I flatter myself) no law, rule or custom, authorising officers to dispute or disobey the commands of their superior officer, though they should appear inconsistent. Most authors tell us, orders are first to be obeyed, and then the validity of them are to be canvassed, and a remedy can easily be obtained after service done.
The import of the word duty is great, and the idea indefinite; and the way to circumscribe its extent is for an officer to do every thing, and obey every order, that appears calculated to promote the good of that service which he is engaged in. The circumstances that appear in the proceedings of the court-martial in consequence of the order, will shew whether it was calculated to promote the [Page 17] aforesaid purposes, and whether colonel Hall was justifiable in refusing to obey them.
I view the horse in question as a supernumerary, fed upon sufferance, and an expence to the public which was not allowed; certainly the public had a right to his services, at least for a few hours. Was colonel Hall's supernumerary coat to eat and drink at the public expence, its services might be required with as much propriety as its master's; however, the allegory is as foreign to the subject, as the colonel's behaviour has been un-officer-like.
The colonel thinks he has seen an order of his excellency's, confining the power of impressing to the quarter-master-general or his deputy; this directly proves that power is lodged somewhere, and also presupposes a right to exist in the commander in chief to carry such powers into execution through the proper channels. Abstracted from my instructions, which in this and other lights are pretty extensive, as commander of this garrison, I am most certainly invested with a similar right in the circle of my command, and therefore should judge an order directed to my division quarter-master of equal validity.
I should apprehend the quarter-master-general, or his deputies, are the only persons to receive and carry into execution orders for impressing horses, &c. and had I ordered that duty to have passed through any other line, then the colonel himself might with great propriety have pronounced it unmilitary. To impress horses or any other species of private property always implies an urgent necessity for such a measure, and the necessity implies something of importance to be effected, which otherways could not be brought about. In such case no true friend to his country ought to oppose or throw the least impediment in the way, and the persons and property of officers, in my opinion, are not more sacred than those o [...] the farmers, who, though they do not fight, yet feed those who do, and are as necessary members of society as the former. I agree that some men are actuated by interested and mercenary [Page 18] views, others by a spirit of contradiction and impatience of controul, and in such cases will not lend their property with their own consent; then force becomes necessary and indispensable. Had colonel Hall like a good officer obeyed those orders, which were neither new or unprecedented, I should not have been under the necessity of using a military force; therefore when the colonel, in the high flood of his wisdom, makes use of this circumstance to disprove the right of impressing officers horses, his arguments only tend to convince the judicious of the necessity of taking such measures, to reduce turbulent and refractory spirits to a sense of their duty.
When an officer once deviates from the line of his profession, by disputing and controverting orders, 'tis neither strange or uncommon to find him justifying one breach by the commission of another. I am sorry to include the colonel in this description; but after violating the order and putting on the cavalier with his commanding officer, he attempts to move the passions of the court by all the quibbling casuistry of an attorney, mistating facts, drawing unfair inferences, tending to mislead the judgment; this certainly is no evidence of candour, whatever it may be of ingenuity. As I have been honoured with the command of this garrison by his excellency general Washington, he certainly has invested me with every power for the good government thereof; therefore I apprehend, among many other powers received for that purpose, the power of impressing horses, &c. was one: this power enables me upon an emergency to impress colonel Hall's supernumerary horse, and would perhaps have justified my going farther. If that power be arbitrary and illegal, the remedy must be sought for and obtained at the fountain head. If then the power of ordering horses to be impressed is vested in me, colonel Hall, according to his own argument, had no right to refuse, and consequently the arrest is just and legal. The path [...]tic display of arbitrary power, invasion of [...] property, breach of privilege, and a number of other [Page 19] eloquent allusions, may divert the fancy, but should never biass the judgment of men of sense; nor do I believe this kind of rhapsody has had any undue influence on the minds of the court, and notwithstanding they are interested in the event of the trial, my partiality for them induces me to think they made up their determination from an impression of an impropriety in the address of the order, which I still apprehend has gone through the proper channel; however, this will be determined by his excellency general Washington, in his approbation or disapprobation of the sentence. As the order was not addressed to colonel Hall, it is supposed he was not bound to obey it. I would ask, was I to order the whole garrison under arms at such an hour, whether colonel Hall, not being particularly mentioned in the order, would think himself bound to obey such an order, and form his regiment? According to the colonel's private opinion and the determination he would certainly not be obliged to pay any attention to it.
Doubtless there are many officers who have as just a sense of the merits of this present contest as colonel Hall, and are as honest men, who have suffered in their persons, and sacrificed as much, nay I will venture to say more, to the shrine of freedom, without all that display of integrity and supererrogation that the colonel sets forth.
That colonel Hall refused to obey my orders is a fact that is allowed; that he threatened to take the life of the person authorised to execute these orders is also allowed; which conduct is certainly unlike an officer: wherefore I conclude, that colonel Hall is guilty of all the charges laid against [...]im in the full meaning and intent of the words.
IT is with much concern the commander in chief thinks himself obliged in propriety to disapprove the determination He is clearly of opinion, that the order issued thro' colonel Sheriff, division quarter-master, was regular and obligatory; regular, because general Smallwood, as commanding [Page 20] officer of a detached post, must be supposed to be officially vested with every power necessary for the good of it, and consequently that of impressing [...] on an emergency, and because the division quarter-master was the proper channel through which it should operate, agreeable to the practice of armies and to the true spirit and design of general orders; obligatory, because it was the order of a superior and commanding officer, and from the face of the evidence appears to have term founded in the necessity of the case, and calculated to promote the service.
Colonel Hall's refusal to comply with the order was a blameable opposition to the command of his superior officer acting in the line of his duty, and the violent threats thrown out against any person that should head a party to execute it, were at least highly indelinate and improper.
Colonel Hall is released from his arrest.
AS I pledged myself some time ago to publish the following trial, the difficulty of obtaining just and proper credentials, (such as the certificates inserted in the remarks, and copies from some of the original papers) may, I hope, apologise to the public for suspending the publication until they could be obtained.
I AM sorry my duty obliges me to order you under an arrest, and also to take no farther charge of that pique [...] guard stationed at Gibson's Ford; you will therefore return immediately to your tent or quarters, where you will confine and consider yourself under an arrest, and conduct yourself accordingly.
YOU will march down your guard to Gibson's Ford, hand captain Norwood the letter which you carry down, then order his guard to return to the encampment, and take post with your own guard at the Ford, tnd dispose of the centries in the best manner for the security of the Ford and post.
I AM sorry my duty obliges me to order you under an arrest, and also to take no farther charge of that piquet guard stationed at Brenton's Ford; you will therefore return immediately to your tent or quarters, where you will confine and consider yourself under an arrest, and conduct yourself accordingly.
YOU are to go down to Brenton's Ford, hand captain Eccleston the letter which you carry down directed to him, after which you are to take charge of your guard which you marched down this morning, agreeable to the general order issued expressly for the purpose of relieving captain Eccleston and the other captains on piquet, which was founded unavoidably from the scarcity of officers not admitting of any other relief, and dispose of the centries in the best manner for the security of the Ford and post.
Return for liquor for guard at Gibson's Ford. May 30, 1778. 1 sergeant, 1 corporal, 12 privates.
(Signed) EDW. NORWOOD, capt. of a serg. guard. Brought by one of the guard to general Smallwood.
Mr. NORWOOD, late a captain in the fourth Maryland regiment, would be glad general Smallwood would send him the charge on which he was arrested, as he does not know any conduct of his for which he ought to be confined or put under an arrest.
THE charge under which you were arrested, is, refusing to comply with a general order, issued expressly for the relief of the troops on piquet, founded in the necessity o [...] the case, and which at that period could not have been otherwise remedied.
I was engaged in forwarding dispatches to colonels Hollingsworth, Rumsey, and Pope, which prevented my sending you the charge last night.
Was I disposed to enter upon a replication to your billet it might with great propriety be observed, that liberty often degenerates into licentiousness, and manly spirit into petulancy, but my time might be better employed by a proper attention to my public duty.
AT A COURT-MARTIAL, Held at PENNSBOROUGH, by order of GENERAL SMALLWOOD, June 2, 1778.
Lieutenant-colonel PETER ADAMS, President,
• Lieut. col. WOOLFORD, , • Major HOWARD, , • Major STEWARD, , • Capt. SMITH, , • Capt. DAVIDSON, , • Capt. LANSDALE, , • Capt. BURGESS, , • Capt. BEALL, , • Capt. OLDHAM, , • Lieut. SMITH, , • Lieut. SCOTT, , and • Lieut. SOMERVILLE.
THE court proceeded to the trial of captain Norwood, charged with refusing to comply with a general order, issued expressly for the relief of the troops on piquet, founded on the necessity of the case, and which at that period could not otherwise be remedied.
Orders of the 31st ultimo being read, captain Norwood confessed he refused to comply with the tenor of that order: captain Norwood confessed likewise, that he believed that to be a general order, a copy of which he was served with by major Hitchcock, and is as follows, viz.
The number of prisoners now under guard, the scarcity of officers, and the difficulty of making up a court-martial for the trial of the prisoners, owing to the disputes subsisting [Page 26] about the rank of officers not being settled, combine to oblige the general to order captains to relieve subs, and subs to relieve captains, on the piquet guard, as there are not sufficient captains for that purpose, exclusive of those who compose the court-martial; the general is therefore sorry to find himself compelled to order subs to relieve the captains on piquet, which measure must be adopted or public business be stopped, and the number of prisoners remain an incumbrance, not only to the public, but to the troops and the present measures now to be adopted; the captains therefore are ordered to march off their guard upon the subs taking post with their relief.
Captain Norwood says in his defence, that the necessity asserted in the orders did not exist at that time, as there were then a sufficient number of subs off duty to have relieved the piquets, and insisted on having the general order to major Hitchcock inserted, it being material to his defence; the subs to whom he alluded were, he says, lieutenants Ewing, Colegate and Ireland, who were competent to relief of the piquets. The general's order to major Hitchcock is as follows, viz.
Captain Norwood says, that the reason for his not sitting on court-martial was, that the rank between himself, Eccleston and Long, was not settled, and that it was his tour to have gone on command instead of captain Selman, and that the court could have been formed without relieving the subalterns then on piquet, by ordering the field officers, or artillery officers, to sit in the room of those captains whose rank was in dispute, and says farther, that he would cheerfully have obeyed that order if he had thought there had been a necessity for it, but that he thought [Page 27] himself pointed at particularly by the order from which he relieved the subs then on duty.
Court adjourned till three o'clock.
Court met according to adjournment. Colonel Ford being duly sworn, deposeth and saith, on being asked by the court at the desire of the general, Whether general Smallwood did not observe as follows:
Question by general Smallwood. Did I not observe to you, that the scarcity of officers and their scruples about rank would render it difficult to make up a court-martial, unless the officers would wave their scruples? And did I not desire you to give my compliments to them, and to beg that they would wave them in the present instance, as there were so many prisoners who were an incumbrance?
Answer by colonel Ford. The general did make the foregoing observations, and that he informed the court that the general hoped they would on that occasion wave their scruples.
Question. Did you not acquaint the general, that all were willing to serve, except Long, Eccleston and Norwood.
Answer. I informed the general, that captains Long, Eccleston and Norwood, would not wave their scruples.
Question by the court. Did you inform the general, that captain Norwood was willing to sit agreeable to the general order?
Answer. I heard no such thing, nor did I inform the general of such a thing.
Question by the general. Did I not observe that I should be under the necessity of sending those three gentlemen to relieve the subs on piquet, and place them that were on piquet on the court martial; as the scarcity of officers rendered this measure necessary? and did not I observe, that I hoped the officers who scrupled to sit on court-martial on account of rank, would not think I pointed at them, as I had no other alternative?
Answer. I think you made observations to that purpose.
[Page 28]Question. How many field officers are there in camp for duty?
Answer. Four; viz. colonel Woolford, major Howard, major Steward, and myself.
Question. Has not their duty been extremely hard since at this post?
Answer. I think it has.
Question. From the duty they have done, would it not from your knowledge have been partial in me to have put them on the court-martial, and exempted the captains, who have done much less duty, from mounting on piquet?
Answer. I do not know that captains have mounted piquet since we came to this post, until the time when captains Long, Eccleston and Norwood were ordered to relieve the piquets.
Questions asked by captain Norwood of colonel Ford. How long had the subs done duty at this place before they were ordered to be relieved by captains?
Answer. I think it was the second day.
Question. Could not that court to your knowledge have been composed, without relieving the subalterns by captains, by putting field officers on that court, as well as the present?
Answer. I think not, as colonel Woolford being a senior officer to me, the court must have been dissolved, had he sat.
Question. Could not that court have been composed except one member?
Answer. I think it could, by putting major Howard and major Steward on.
Question. Did not colonel Ford hear me say, I was willing to sit on that court-martial agreeable to the Maryland roster?
Answer. I think I did.
Question by the general. Was not major Howard relieved by colonel Woolford the morning the court was ordered?
[Page 29]Answer. I think he was.
Question asked by captain Norwood. How long had the field officers done duty before the captains were ordered to relieve subalterns?
Answer. From the time the guards were first mounted at this place.
Question by the general. When was the court-martial ordered of which you was president?
Answer. I believe on the 30th of May.
Questions by the general to major Howard. Who relieved you on the 30th of May, 1778?
Answer. Colonel Woolford.
Question. Did you know that there was a court martial ordered that day, and colonel Ford president?
Answer. Not until I was relieved.
Questions by the court. Did you know it after you was relieved?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Did you know that major Steward was appointed to relieve colonel Woolford on the 31st ult.?
Answer. Major Steward was appointed, but I did the duty in his room.
Question by captain Norwood to major Howard. Could not a court-martial have been composed on the 30th ult. by putting on three field officers, and leaving an officer to do the field duty?
Answer. I believe it might have been done, by comprehending the field officers who came off duty that morning.
Colonel Woolford being sworn, was asked by the general—
Question. Do you know, from the scarcity of officers and the hard duty of field and subaltern officers, that I could have relieved the piquets otherwise, without injuring the field and subaltern officers much more than the captains?
Answer. I think they must have been injured more than the captains, from the returns that I have seen.
[Page 30]Question. Did you not see or hear the captains enter into a combination, not to be relieved but by captains? and did not you know that this could not be effected without dissolving the court-martial, or distressing the subs who had lately come off duty?
Answer. I heard some of them say they would not be relieved but by captains, and I think they could not be relieved by captains without dissolving the court-martial.
Question. Did you not dissuade them from entering into such a resolution?
Answer. I told them they had better not enter into such a resolution, for they would bring themselves into trouble.
Question asked colonel Woolford by captain Norwood How long did the field officers and subalterns do duty by the 30th of May?
Answer. I do not know, as I went to quarters the night we encamped; by information I can inform the court it was from the 29th to the 30th.
Brigade-major Hitchcock being duly sworn, was asked by the general with leave from the court—Had you any other way of relieving the piquet, establishing the court-martial, furnishing officers for the main guard, and the party of observation, than the mode I directed on the 30th ult. without injuring the few field officers and subalterns much more than the captains?
Answer. I think it could not be done in any other manner.
Question. Had not the duty of the field and subaltern officers been harder latterly than the captains?
Major Hitchcock, in answer to the above question, represents, that on the 26th of May, when the first brigade marched, and agreeable to the weekly returns (there then being four field officers returned fit for duty, ten captains and eleven subalterns) one field officer, one captain, and seven subalterns, were put on duty from the second brigade; and one field officer, one captain, and six subalterns, [Page 31] on duty the 27th of May, and continued, with the addition of one subaltern, to the 28th of May, as a reinforcement to the main and rear guards, and arrived that evening at our present encampment; and that on the 29th, three subalterns mounted on the piquets, and that they were relieved by three other subalterns on the 30th in the morning, who were ordered to be relieved by the three captains, Long, Eccleston, and Norwood, and after being relieved went immediately on court-martial.
THE court, after considering the evidence delivered on both sides, are of opinion, that captain Norwood is guilty of disobedience to a general order, and sentence him to be privately reprimanded by the officer commanding the regiment to which he belongs.
THE commander in chief utterly disapproves the sentence, as altogether inadequate to the offence; the mutinous and dangerous spirit which actuated captain Norwood, merited in his opinion the most exemplary punishment. He is to be released from his arrest.
IN consequence of a complaint lodged in this office, you are hereby ordered in arrest.
1st. For publicly declaring and implying, that you did not regard the censure of the commander in chief, because the facts set forth to him on your trial were mistated.
2dly. For conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, in suggesting publicly, that the facts were misrepresented; which has an implied tendency either to reflect on his excellency, the court-martial, or general Smallwood, or on the whole.
3dly. For declaring, that general Smallwood has been guilty of partiality in your case, and that he is no gentleman, and that you would make it your business to declare publicly, that general Smallwood was a partial man and no gentleman, every opportunity.
August 19, 1778.
AT a general court-martial of the line, of which colonel Hazen was president, captain Norwood, of the fourth Maryland regiment, appeared before the court, charged with
1st. Publicly declaring and implying, that he did not regard the censure of the commander in chief, because the facts set forth on his trial to him were mistated.
2dly. With conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, in suggesting publicly, that the facts were misrepresented, which has an implied tendency to reflect on his Excellency, on the court-martial, on general Smallwood, or on the whole.
3dly. With declaring that general Smallwood has been guilty of partiality in his case, that the general was no gentleman, and that he would make it his business to declare publicly, that general Smallwood was a partial man and no gentleman.
Pleads not guilty of the first and second charges.
Captain Norwood requested the court not to proceed on an examination of the 3d charge exhibited against him, unless he was permitted to lay before them those facts which had occasioned the expressions he had used relative to the character of general Smallwood; in this case he said he could justify them.
As such an enquiry would lead to the trial of general Smallwood, which the court do not think themselves authorised to enter on, and as passing sentence on captain Norwood, for expressions he has made use of, without hearing his reasons for those expressions, might do injustice to that gentleman, the court are unanimously of opinion, that they cannot with propriety enter into an enquiry on the third charge exhibited against captain Norwood.
[Page 34]At the particular request of general Smallwood, the court deferred hearing the witnesses on the first and second charges exhibited against captain Norwood, till they should be empowered to try him for the third charge likewise.
The court adjourns till to-morrow 9 o'clock.
I HAVE read and considered the proceedings of the court-martial in the case of captain Norwood. If our military constitution does not authorise the court to investigate the third charge exhibited against him, and to determine upon the same, and on the defence he offers, no powers can be derived from me for the purpose. However I am of opinion that they have a jurisdiction in the case, and that though a trial before such a court may in its consequences and operation bring in question the character of a general officer, yet that this circumstance will not supersede their power of enquiry, as to the matters in charge, as they are not to pass sentence against the general officer. This I deliver as mere matter of opinion, and without the least design or wish to influence the court to proceed in the case of captain Norwood, if their sentiments are still the same respecting the incompetency of their power.
After intermediate adjournments. Saturday, August 22, 1778.
The court, of which colonel Hazen was president, me [...] according to adjournment.
A letter from his excellency general Washington to the president, respecting a former determination of the court-martial, [Page 35] that they could not with propriety enter into an investigation of the third article of the charge exhibited by general Smallwood against captain Norwood, was laid before the court.
They reconsidered their former decision, and still remained of opinion, that it was founded on military principles, and that they could not depart from it.
Captain Norwood observed to the court, that he had been arraigned before them, that he had plead to that part of his charge which they thought themselves competent to proceed on, and that he now insisted on being tried on those articles of the charge exhibited against him to which he had already plead.
The court were of opinion, that, as captain Norwood had plead to his charge, he had a right to insist on his trial, and determined that they would proceed to an investigation of the two first articles of the charge exhibited against captain Norwood.
The court adjourns till Monday next 9 o'clock.
The court having met on Monday the 24th, adjourned till the day following, and then proceeded to an investigation of the two first charges exhibited against captain Norwood, as below recited.
Tuesday▪ August 25, 1778.
Captain Norwood, of the fourth Maryland regiment, appeared before the court, and they proceeded to an investigation of the two first charges exhibited against him, to which he had before plead Not Guilty.
The charges were, 1st. Publicly declaring and implying that he did not regard the censure of the commander in chief, because the facts set forth to him on his (captain Norwood's) trial, were mistated.
2dly. Conduct unbecoming the character of an officer and a gentleman, in suggesting publicly that the facts were misrepresented, which had an implied tendency either to reflect on his Excellency, or the court-martial, or general Smallwood, or on the whole.
[Page 36]General Smallwood made an objection to the court's proceeding on the two first articles of the charge exhibited against captain Norwood, unless they would include the whole of the charge, in which case he was willing to give captain Norwood the fullest power of justifying his expressions with which he was charged.
The court, after considering the objection made by general Smallwood to their proceeding further in the case of captain Norwood, were of opinion, that it was inadmissible, since stopping their proceeding in consequence of this objection, would be supposing that they had no right to continue them, and consequently, that an officer who has arrested another possesses the power of preventing the supreme military court in the American army from examining into the merits of the charge.
The court then proceeded to hear the witnesses in the case of captain Norwood.
Captain Brice deposes and says, That while the army lay at Valley-Fo [...]ge, in a conversation which passed between captain Norwood and himself on the reprimand which captain Norwood had received in general orders, that gentleman said, that he did wot " mind, or that he did not regard," the reprimand, as he was pretty certain that the facts, on which he had been tried, were misrepresented to his Excellency by general Smallwood.
Question by the court at the request of general Smallwood. Had you any further conversation with captain Norwood concerning his trial, or on that subject at that or any other time?
Answer. None that I recollect respecting the charges now before the court.
Question by the prisoner. Did you infer from the tenor of my conversation that I could mean a reflection on his Excellency or on the court-martial in any respect whatever?
Answer. I thought you meant no reflection on the court, but I conceive that your expressions must have had a tendency to reflect on his Excellency, as it was supposing that [Page 37] his Excellency attended more to the representation made by general Smallwood than to the proceedings of the court-martial, though I did not think you meant to convey this idea.
Lieutenant Baily deposes and says, That while the army lay at Valley-Forge, he heard captain Norwood say, in a public company, that he did not much mind the reprimand given him in general orders, because he suspected that the facts on which he was tried had been misrepresented to his Excellency by general Smallwood.
Question by the court. Did you hear any thing farther?
Answer. Nothing.
Question by the prisoner. Did you conceive that I said any thing disrespectful of his Excellency, or of the court-martial?
Answer. I conceived you meant a reflection on general Smallwood, and no other person.
Captain Norwood urges in his defence, That he never did, and never intended, to insinuate any thing injurious to his Excellency, or to the court-martial, that it was general Smallwood only on whom he reflected.
The court having considered the charges and the evidence, are of opinion, that captain Norwood did say, that he did not regard, or did not mind, the censure of the commander in chief, because the facts stated to him on his (captain Norwood's) trial were misrepresented; and are farther of opinion, that his expression had a tendency (though captain Norwood could not mean it) to reflect on his Excellency, as well as on general Smallwood. The court find captain Norwood guilty of breaches of the 5th article of the 18th section, and of the 2d article of the 2d section of the articles of war, and do sentence him to be reprimanded in general orders. The court acquit captain Norwood of un-officer and un-gentleman-like behaviour, and of reflecting on the court-martial.
We, the subscribers, being present on the 19th instant at a court-martial, whereof colonel Hazen was president, then on the trial of captain Norwood, charged for publicly declaring and implying that he did not regard the censure of the commander in chief, because the facts set forth to him on his trial were mistated; secondly, for conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, in suggesting publicly that the facts were misrepresented, which has an implied tendency either to reflect on his Excellency, the court-martial, or general Smallwood, or on the whole; thirdly, for declaring that general Smallwood had been guilty of partiality in his case, and that he is no gentleman, and that he would make it his business to declare publicly that general Smallwood was a partial man and no gentleman, every opportunity—When captain Norwood plead not guilty to the two first articles, but informed the court he would justify the last article of the charge, if he was allowed the liberty of going into a full justification of his allegations, by adducing evidence, and recurring to and proving facts which happened in course of his late trial; the president and some other members then observed and doubted their competency to try the last article of the charge, urging, if he supported his assertions, that it must bring general Smallwood's conduct in question, which they had no right to determine on. General Smallwood then urged the propriety of their going into an investigation of the charge at large, and insisted on their proceeding to the trial, and requested them to give captain Norwood every latitude he would ask of justifying his assertions, by adducing evidence and recurring to the proceedings on his late trial, or proving any facts which happened thereon, urging their competency, and observing, that if captain Norwood justified the last article of the charge, they must acquit him, which would impliedly censure and subject general Smallwood's conduct to an enquiry, but if he could not support his allegations, their powers derived under the [Page 39] articles of war, enabled them to pass sentence as the nature of his offence might require. The parties then withdrew at the instance of the court till their opinion could be taken, who determined they could not go into a consideration of the latter part of the charge: general Smallwood then objected to a partial examination, without the charge was considered at large; the court being embarrassed, it was agreed by them and the parties to enter up the proceedings thus far, and prefer them to the commander in chief, to take his opinion respecting the proceedings of the court, or the appointment of a special court for that purpose.
- THOMAS WOOLFORD, Lieut. col.
- JACOB BRICE, Captain,
- JOHN BAILY, Lieutenant.
It is stated to the court by general Smallwood, that it was not at his particular request that the court (as recited in their proceedings) deferred hearing witnesses on the first and second charges exhibited against captain Norwood, till he might be prosecuted for the third article of the charge likewise, but on the contrary, general Smallwood requested the court to proceed on an investigation of the articles of the charge at large, and to give captain Norwood every latitude he would ask of justifying his assertions, by adducing evidence in support of them, and recurring to the proceedings of his trial on a late court-martial, wherein he was charged with a breach of general orders, on which he was found guilty, sentenced to be reprimanded, and was farther censured by the commander in chief, which censure gave rise to the expressions from which the last article of the charge originated—But on the court determining that they were incompetent to proceed on the third article of the charge, for reasons exhibited also in their proceedings, general Smallwood then objected to their proceeding on [Page 40] the two first articles, without they would comprehend and make up their determination on the charge at large.
We, the subscribers, being present at a court-martial on the 25th of August, 1778, whereof colonel Hazen was president, then on the trial of captain Norwood, saw general Smallwood present the above stated facts, signed as above, which general Smallwood then insisted should be entered in the proceedings of the trial, as they would justify his conduct, by making it appear he was ready to give captain Norwood every latitude of justifying his assertions, and urged the propriety and insisted on the court going into a full investigation of the charge at large, which the court refused, judging their power incompetent, but determined to proceed to an investigation of the two first articles only, which general Smallwood objected to, unless they would include and make up their determination on the charge at large; and on general Smallwood's insisting on the above recited facts to be entered in the proceedings, the opinion of the court was taken, and they refused to admit of their entry, though no member of the court objected to the truth of the state, but on the contrary, the president and judge-advocate acknowledged them to be properly stated, and general Smallwood then observed, as the court would not admit of their entry, he should be under the necessity of obtaining certificates of those facts having occurred before the court, and his demanding an [...]y thereof; the president then replied, that matter would be more proper to comply with out of court, and said he would have no objection. Given tender our hands the date above.
- J. BRICE. Captain,
- JOHN BAILY, Lieut.
NOTE. Though the court admitted the truth of the facts above stated, yet they objected to their entry at this time on their proceedings, but afterwards I observe they have done me the justice to admit that I desired that captain Norwood might have every latitude given him of justifying his assertions, upon a full investigation of the charges.
THE commander in chief finds himself under the disagreeable necessity of disapproving the proceedings of the court, because they have not tried all the charges exhibited before them on each fact; agreeable to precedent and common usage, they ought to have given either a sentence of acquittal or condemnation. To this end their power and jurisdiction seem to have been fully competent; the third charge, from its very nature, implied a right of justification in the prisoner could not be discriminated in point of reason from either of the preceding ones, or any other, the matter in question between the parties in this instance was the character and conduct of one of them. The prisoner, by the strongest implication, acknowledged he had made the charge as stated, and if permitted would justify it; general Smallwood, on the other hand, consented and declared himself willing, that the should have the fullest power of doing it; this circumstance, supposing there had been room for doubt before respecting the court's authority to try the matter, was sufficient to remove every objection. Captain Norwood still remains in arrest, and is to be tried on the several charges exhibited against him.
Sunday, September 13, 1778.
THE court, of which colonel Humpton is president met according to the orders of yesterday.
Colonel Regnier took the place of colonel Millen, and was sworn agreeable to the articles of war. Captain Barnes, Davis, Hinds, Woodson, Garner, and Nicholas, took the places of captains Watson, Redding, Livermore, Bell, Rice, and Ewell, and were sworn as is directed by the articles of war.
The court then were as follows: Colonel HUMPTON, President.
- Lieut. col. REGNIER,
- Major THOMPSON,
- Captain BARNES,
- Captain BUTLER,
- Captain DAVIS,
- Captain PELL,
- Captain HINDS,
- Captain MARBURY,
- Captain TATUM,
- Captain WOODSONS,
- Captain GARNER,
- Captain NICHOLAS,
IN obedience to general orders, issued the fourt [...] of this instant, the court proceeded to the tri [...] of captain Norwood, of the fourth Maryland regiment, charged with,
1st. Publicly declaring and implying, tha [...] he did not regard the censure of the commander in chief because the facts set forth to him on his trial were mistated.
2dly. Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman in suggesting publicly, that the facts were misrepresented which has an implied tendency either to reflect [...]n his excellency, or the court-martial, or general Smallwood, [...] the whole.
[Page 43]3dly. Declaring that general Smallwood has been guilty [...]f partiality in his case, that the general is no gentleman, and that he would make it his business to declare publicly, every opportunity, that general Smallwood was a partial man and no gentleman.
Captain Norwood refused to plead to the two first articles of the charge exhibited against him, he urged that he had already been tried on them by a former court-martial, and that he could not be tried twice for the same facts.
The court having considered the objection made by captain Norwood, are of opinion, that our military constitution undoubtedly vests the commander in chief with the power of disapproving the proceedings of a court martial, and of ordering an officer to be tried again by the same or another court. The court were farther of opinion, that as general orders of the fourth instant positively directed them to proceed on the whole of the charge, they would investigate the two first articles of the charge exhibited against captain Norwood, in the same manner as if he had plead to them.
Captain Norwood pleads guilty of the third charge, and urges in justification that his expressions were true.
Captain Norwood objected to general Smallwood's asking any questions of the several witnesses who should be examined in the course of his trial; he contends, that the general can have no right to ask any questions, as the judge-advocate alone is empowered to prosecute.
The court were of opinion, that, as the principal end proposed by a court-martial must be to discover the truth, and as general Smallwood might ask many questions which had a tendency to illucidate the different charges, he should be permitted to propose any questions, which, if thought proper by the court, should be asked by the judge-advocate.
Captain Brice deposes and says, That, while the army lay at Valley-Forge, in a conversation which passed between captain Norwood, himself, and others, on the reprimand [Page 44] which captain Norwood had received in general orders, that gentleman said he did not much mind the reprimand, as he was pretty certain that the facts on which he had been tried were misrepresented to his Excellency by general Smallwood. Conversing on his form [...]r arrest and trial, captain Norwood said, that captain Ec [...]leston and himself had been arrested on the same cha [...]ge; that general Smallwood had discharged captain Eccl [...]ston from his arrest and had prosecuted him, for doing which he was a partial man and no gentleman. Captain Norwood said farther, that he would make it his business to declare publicly in every company, that general Smallwood was a partial man and no gentleman.
Lieutenant Bailey deposes and says, That while the army lay at Valley-Forge, he heard captain Norwood say in a public company, that he did not much mind the reprimand he had received in general orders, because he imagined, that the facts on which he was tried had been misrepresented to his Excellency by general Smallwood. He said farther, that general Smallwood was a partial man and no gentleman, and that he would assert this in every public company into which he should go.
Question by the court. Do you know what gave occasion to these expressions used by captain Norwood?
Answer. No, I was not present at the whole of the conversation.
Question by the court at the request of general Smallwood. Did you know or understand, that captain Norwood used these expressions in consequence of the censure passed on him by general Washington, on his late trial at Chad's Ford?
Answer. I understood, but was not certain that he did.
Major Hitchcock depose [...] and says, That he does not recollect hearing any expressions from captain Norwood relative to the character of general Smallwood, till that gentleman was arrested, but is particularly acquainted with the former arrests of captain Norwood and of captain Eccleston, [Page 45] with the oftensible reasons which induced general Smallwood [...]o discharge captain Eccleston from his arrest, though he prosecuted captain Norwood. B [...]h these gentlemen were arrested for refusing, when on guard, to be relieved by subalterns. Some little time before th [...]ir trial, the deponent met colonel Woolford, was asked whether it was possible to release an officer from his arrest before his trial? Major Hi [...]chcock re [...]i [...], that it might be done. Colonel Woolford then said, that he would apply to the general for the releasemen [...] of captain Eccleston, who was now sorry for what he had done. Major Hitchcock said, that he did not doub [...] but the general would release that gentleman on pr [...]pe [...] acknowledgments being made. They then parted, and major Hitchcock was soon informed by general Smallwood, that captain Eccleston was not to be tried. While the court was sitting captain Norwood observed, that he was treated partially, as captain Eccleston, who was arrested on the same charge with himself, was released from his arrest, while he was prosecuted; general Smallwood then declared, that had such applications been made to him for the discharge of captain Norwood as were made for the discharge of captain Eccleston, he too should have been released from his arrest.
Question by the court. Was there any general order directing that subalterns should relieve captains?
Answer. An express order was issued for that purpose.
Question by the court. Did any private pique subsist between general Smallwood and captain Norwood previous to this arrest?
Answer. Not to my knowledge.
Question by the prisoner. Did you ever hear me say any thing comprehended in the charges exhibited against me before this court?
Answer. I heard you, in the court-martial at Chad's-Ford, tell general Smallwood, that you thought he was partial in trying you when he had released captain Eccleston, though arrested for the same fact.
[Page 46]Captain Norwood objects to the testimony of major Hitchcock, as containing nothing which respects the charges exhibited against him before this court. He enters now a general objection against any witnesses who may be adduced, whose testimonies do not immediately tend to illucidate those charges on which he is to be tried.
The court having considered the objection of captain Norwood and the testimony of major Hitchcock, are of opinion, that, as it appears from the testimony of captain Brice that the releasement of captain Eccleston from his arrest constitutes a part of that partiality with which captain Norwood accuses general Smallwood, an enquiry into that fact comes with propriety from this court, and they do determine that the testimony of major Hitchcock shall remain on their proceedings.
Colonel Woolford deposes and says, That in the evening of the day on which captains Norwood and Eccleston were arrested, he met the latter gentleman, and was informed by him that he was in arrest; that this distressed him much, as he was apprehensive he should be cashiered, and he was now sensible he had been in an error. Colonel Woolford told him, that if he would make such acknowledgments to general Smallwood, he did not doubt but the general might be induced to release him from his arrest. At captain Eccleston's request, colonel Woolford spoke to general Smallwood on this subject, and stated to him the conversation which had passed between captain Eccleston and himself. General Smallwood said this was all he requested from either gentleman, and captain Eccleston was soon after released from his arrest.
Question by the prisoner. Did you ever hear me say anything comprehended in the charges exhibited against me before this court?
Answer. I have heard you use some expressions relative to the character of general Smallwood, I am not certain what they were, but I think you said he was no gentleman, or did not act like a gentleman.
The court adjourns till to-morrow 9 o'clock▪
Captain Ghiselin and captain Baytop took the places of captain Hinds and captain Davis, and were sworn agreeable to the articles of war. The proceedings of yesterday were read to them. Colonel Woolford was again adduced to the court as a witness, and was asked the following questions:
Question by the court at the request of general Smallwood. Do you remember the day that you, at the request of captain Eccleston, applied to general Smallwood to have him released from his arrest?
Answer. It was the day preceding that on which the general released him.
Question by the court at the request of general Smallwood. What did general Smallwood say to you on your application in favour of captain Eccleston, with respect to that gentleman's releasement?
Answer. He said that he had no other motive for arresting captains Norwood and Eccleston but to convince them of their error, and to prevent the service from being injured in future by a similar conduct; that since captain Eccleston was sensible he had been wrong, if he would acknowledge it in writing, he (general Smallwood) would release him, the general wished the acknowledgment to be made in writing, that it might justify him in discharging Captain Eccleston from his arrest.
The following witnesses appeared at the request of captain Norwood.
Captain Oldham deposes and says, That captains Norwood and Eccleston were arrested at Chad's-Ford for the same crime, they were each brought before a court-martial, and each plead guilty to their charge. After captain Norwood had made his defence, the court asked captain Eccleston if it was sufficient for him, he replied that it was. Almost immediately a note was given to the president, which released captain Eccleston from his arrest. The court then proceeded on the trial of captain Norwood; [Page 48] in some little time general Smallwood came into the room some of the court observed to him, that they were determining on captain Norwood's case, the general signified a desire to hear the proceedings of the court, with captain Norwood's defence, read, this was done, he conceived that some part of captain Norwood's defence reflected on his conduct, and insisting upon having a defence against those reflections entered; the propriety of entering such a defence on the proceedings of the court, as captain Norwood had been already tried so far as to be found guilty of the charge, was objected to by several members; at this general Smallwood grew exceedingly warm, signified that some of the court were partial, and farther said, that if his defence was not entered with the proceedings, and opinion given on the whole, he would dissolve the court and take Norwood to head quarters for trial; he farther insisted that the president should inform him by a note in the next room, where he would stay, whether his defence should be entered or not; the court were of opinion that the general's defence, with his evidences, should be entered, and opinion given conjointly on the whole.
Question by the court. Who was to prosecute captains Eccleston and Norwood?
Answer. I conceived that the judge-advocate, or person officiating as such, was to prosecute them.
Question by the court. Did any witnesses appear in behalf of the United States?
Answer. No.
Question by the court. Was general Smallwood informed that the court had met before they proceeded on the trials of captains Norwood and Eccleston?
Answer. I cannot tell.
Question by the court. What induced the court to proceed on those trials without giving general Smallwood notice of their intentions?
Answer. I conceived and believe the court thought, that as those gentlemen plead guilty to their charges, testimony against them was unnecessary.
[Page 49]Question by the court at the request of general Smallwood. Was there any judge-advocate?
Answer. A member took down the proceedings, and, I conceived, acted as judge-advocate.
Question by the court at the request of general Smallwood. Was he properly sworn to execute that duty?
Answer. I believe not.
Question by the prisoner. Was it customary in that division for a member to act as judge-advocate?
Answer. Yes, but they were not sworn as judge-advocates.
Question by the prisoner. Was any person appointed by general Smallwood a judge-advocate?
Answer. Not to my knowledge.
Question by the prisoner. Was it customary for an officer who arrested another to act as prosecutor?
Answer. I cannot determine; I have not conceived them to be prosecutors.
Question by the court. Who swore the members of the court?
Answer. The president.
Question by the court at the request of general Smallwood. Did general Smallwood make application to the court for evidence to be taken in behalf of the United States?
Answer. I think the general requested that his witnesses should be examined, but I believed those witnesses were only to exculpate himself from those reflections which captain Norwood, in his defence, had cast on him, as I did not conceive evidences in behalf of the United States necessary, when captain Norwood plead guilty to his charge.
Question by the court at the request of general Smallwood. When general Smallwood came into court, were the proceedings and sentence in the case of captain Norwood fully made up?
Answer. No, I believe the court had sentenced him to be reprimanded, but had not determined in what manner.
[Page 50]Question by the court at the request of general Smallwood. Was it on the first or second day or the trial that general Smallwood insisted that the determination of the court should be made on the evidence on both sides, and not partially?
Answer. I cannot recollect certainly, but I think on both.
Question by the court at the request of general Smallwood. Did captain Norwood object, the second day, to the court's determining on the proceedings at large?
Answer. Captain Norwood signified to the court, that he had been tried the day before, and said, he hoped that the proceedings of that day would not be entered with those of the preceding day.
Question by the court at the request of general Smallwood. Did captain Norwood accuse general Smallwood in court of acting partially in discharging captain Eccleston from his arrest?
Answer. I think he did.
Question by the court at the request of general Smallwood. What answer did the general make?
Answer. He denied being partial, and declared on his honour that he would have released captain Norwood had he made such concessions as were made by captain Eccleston.
Question by the prisoner. Did I accuse the court of being guilty of partiality?
Answer. Not to my knowledge.
Question by the prisoner. Did general Smallwood offer any evidence in behalf of the United States before the proceedings were read to him?
Answer. I do not recollect that he did.
Question by the prisoner. Did general Smallwood object to the court's having proceeded on my trial till their proceedings were read to him?
Answer. I think he did not.
[Page 51]Question by the court at the request of general Smallwood. How long was general Smallwood in the court before he asked to hear their proceedings?
Answer. He asked as soon as he came in.
The court adjourns till to-morrow 9 o'clock.
Tuesday, September 15, 1778.
Captain Bell deposes and says, That, at Chad's Ford, when captains Norwood and Eccleston were arrested by general Smallwood, a court was called for the purpose of trying them; the court met at the time appointed, and, after being properly prepared, asked captains Norwood and Eccleston, Whether they plead guilty to their charges. They replied in the affirmative. Captain Norwood's witnesses were examined, after which he gave in a defence. Captain Eccleston's defence was the same as captain Norwood's. Just then captain Eccleston received a note, which he read and presented to the president: he was by that note released from his arrest; the deponent thinks be then left the room. The court had found captain Norwood guilty of disobedience of orders, and were proceeding to determine on his punishment, when general Smallwood came into the room, and desired that the proceedings of the court should be read; after hearing them, the general conceived, that what captain Norwood had said reflected on him, and begged leave to offer something in justification of himself; this the court granted; general Smallwood's evidence and defence were taken down; some words passed between him and captain Norwood, the deponent does not recollect them. After this captain Norwood spoke to the court, and indicated his hopes, that they would not consider general Smallwood's evidence and defence conjointly with his. General Smallwood was then going out of the room; on hearing what captain Norwood said, he returned, was very angry, and told the court that he would not be baffled by them; that it was in his power to dissolve the court and, since he found that they were inclined to baffle him, he would dissolved it and have captain [Page 52] Norwood tried at head quarters. The general added, That he perceived some of the court were inclined to act partially, and desired the president to signify, by a note to him in the next room, whether they would give their opinion on his evidence conjointly with captain Norwood's or not; the court informed him that they would, and thus put an end to the dispute.
Question by the court. Were captains Norwood and Eccleston tried together or separately?
Answer. I think they were tried together.
Question by the court. Did the court ask whether they chose to be tried together or separately?
Answer. I do not recollect that they did.
Question by the court. Did the gentlemen request to be tried together?
Answer. I do not recollect that they did.
Question by the court at the request of general Smallwood. Did general Smallwood give in a defence to the court?
Answer. He gave the court his reasons for arresting captain Norwood, and for ordering captains to be relieved by subalterns.
Question by the court at the request of general Smallwood. When captain Norwood indicated his hopes that the court would not consider the evidences produced by general Smallwood, did any members object to a consideration of the testimony offered by the general?
Answer. A dispute arose in court about the propriety of admitting the witnesses offered by the general.
Question by the court at the request of general Smallwood. Was there a great heat in the court publicly, on that matter?
Answer. There were high disputes.
Question by the court at the request of general Smallwood. Had general Smallwood any intimation of the court's proceeding on the trials of captains Norwood and Eccleston before they did proceed?
[Page 53]Answer. I do not recollect that he had.
Question by the court at the request of general Smallwood. Was there any difference between general Smallwood and captain Norwood previous to this trial?
Answer. I think there was.
Question by the court at the request of general Smallwood. What was it?
Answer. While the division lay at Wilmington, one of the officers had touched on the general's character; this occasioned him to call the officers together at his quarters, where he began to clear up the charges which had been said against him; in clearing them up, high disputes arose, particularly between the general and captain Norwood, concerning the usage of soldiers, and other matters. Captain Norwood said, that be would always make a point of striking any soldier who gave him ill language; the general replied, then he would always make a point of arresting him.
Question by the court at the request of general Smallwood. Did the dispute between general Smallwood and captain Norwood amount to a quarrel, or was it only a difference in sentiment?
Answer. It was a difference in sentiment.
Question by the court. Was this difference of sentiment carried on with warmth on each side?
Answer. They were not very warm, but there was a degree of warmth.
Question by the court. Did you ever hear captain Norwood, previous to his arrest at Chad's-Ford, say that general Smallwood was a partial man and no gentleman?
Answer. No.
Question by the prisoner. Did the general give in his defence the day that I plead to the charge, or was it the day after?
Answer. I do not recollect.
Question by the prisoner. Did the court meet one or two days?
[Page 54]Answer. Two days.
Lieutenant Smith deposes and says, That, when Captains Norwood and Eccleston were arrested at Chad's-Ford, they each appeared at a court of which he was a member. Captain Norwood gave in a defence, which captain Eccleston said was sufficient for him. At this time captain Eccleston gave a note to the president, which the court thought sufficient to release him from his arrest. They then cleared the room, and proceeded to passing sentence on captain Norwood; they had found him guilty and ordered him to be reprimanded, but had not entered their determination on their proceedings, when general Smallwood came into the room. The deponent informed the general, that the court were then determining on captain Norwood's case; he requested to hear the proceedings of the court, with captain Norwood's defence; after hearing them, he informed the court, that he had some evidences to bring in against some reflections thrown out in captain Norwood's defence. Some of the court objected to the propriety of his bringing in witnesses after they had begun to determine on the case. Without coming to any resolution, the court adjourned till next day. Then general Smallwood insisted on introducing his witnesses, and the court granted his request. After his witnesses were heard, he harangued the court himself, and gave them his reasons for releasing captain Eccleston and not captain Norwood. After this captain Norwood observed, that he thought it would be improper to give their opinion on the proceedings of the two days together, and left the room. The general immediately fell in a passion, and insisted on its being done, as he had not been present the day before, and had it not in his power to bring in his witnesses. This occasioned much confusion in the court, in the course of which general Smallwood said he did not doubt but some of the court were not partial. He likewise insisted, that the president should signify, by a note to him in tne next room, whether they would consider the proceedings of the two [Page 55] days conjointly. The court gratified him. General Smallwood had called this court, and appointed the hour at which they were to meet; they were to have met about two hours and a half before the general came; it was observed by some of the court, that it was unnecessary to send for the general, as he knew the time the court was to meet, which time was elapsed, and as the gentlemen would plead guilty to the charges against them, for which reasons it was imagined that there was no occasion for witnesses.
Question by the court. When the court knew that captain Norwood had a defence to give in, did they inform general Smallwood of it?
Answer. Not to my knowledge.
Question by the court at the request of general Smallwood. Did captain Eccleston receive the note which released him from his arrest in court?
Answer. He received a note which I supposed to be his releasement in court, in the midst of captain Norwood's defence; from the manner of bringing it, the note appeared to have been sent in a hurry?
Question by the court at the request of general Smallwood. Was that note read to the court?
Answer. Yes.
Question by the court at the request of general Smallwood. Had any evidence been offered by captain Norwood when the court proceeded to determine in his case?
Answer. Not that I recollect.
Question by the court at the request of general Smallwood. How long had the court sat before general Smallwood came?
Answer. I do not remember, but from the proceedings I imagine they must have set an hour or an hour and a half.
Question by the court at the request of general Smallwood. Did general Smallwood assign any reason for his not attending sooner?
Answer. I believe he did after the proceedings of the court were read to him.
[Page 56]Question by the court at the request of general Smallwood. What were those reasons?
Answer. I think he said there were some prisoners in the main guard whom he had to send to Lancaster.
Question by the prisoner. Were captain Eccleston and myself both arrested for the same crime?
Answer. As well as I can recollect you were.
Question by the prisoner. Did captain Eccleston and myself both plead guilty to the same charge?
Answer. You did.
Question by the prisoner. Did I give in a justification or defence?
Answer. You acknowledged the fact, and gave your reasons for acting in the manner you had.
Question by the court at the request of general Smallwood. Do you remember the reasons general Smallwood gave the court for releasing captain Eccleston and not captain Norwood?
Answer. He said that captain Eccleston had acknowledged his fault; he added, that if captain Eccleston had not done this, and captain Norwood had, he would have released captain Norwood and would have prosecuted captain Eccleston.
The court adjourns till the day after to-morrow 9 o'clock.
The movements of the army prevented the court from meeting till Saturday, September 19, 1778, when the court met at Salem, and proceeded to a farther investigation of the charges exhibited against captain Norwood.
The deposition of captain Eccleston, taken by the judge advocate in presence of general Smallwood and captain Norwood, was read to the court, and admitted as evidence.
The deposition was as follows: Captain Eccleston deposes and says, That he has never heard captain Norwood say any thing comprehended in the charges for which he is now in arrest.
The following questions were asked by general Smallwood and captain Norwood.
[Page 57]Question by general Smallwood. Was you arrested by me for a breach of orders at Chad's-Ford at the same time that captain Norwood was?
Answer. Yes.
Question by general Smallwood. Did you refuse to march your guard into camp agreeable to the general order?
Answer. Yes.
Question by general Smallwood. When the subaltern who went to take charge of your post came, did you suffer your guard to march into camp?
Answer. I did.
Question by general Smallwood. Did you write major Steward a letter on that subject?
Answer. I wrote to major Steward requesting his advice.
Question by general Smallwood. What conversation had you with colonel Woolford on the subject of your arrest?
Answer. I told colonel Woolford that I was sorry for what had happened, as it was the first time I had ever been arrested, and as I thought, after taking the advice of several officers, that I ought to have obeyed the order.
Question by general Smallwood. Did you request colonel Woolford to speak to me in your favour?
Answer. To the best of my knowledge I did not.
Question by general Smallwood. Did you receive a letter from me on that subject?
Answer. I did.
Question by general Smallwood. Was the conversation between you and colonel Woolford previous to the receipt of that letter?
Answer. It was.
Question by general Smallwood. Did that letter require an acknowledgment of your error in writing before you could be released?
Answer. It did.
Question by general Smallwood. Did you make that acknowledgment.
[Page 58]Answer. Yes.
Question by general Smallwood. Were you relieved immediately on that acknowledgment?
Answer. I was.
Question by general Smallwood. Was you tried by the court when you received the discharge from your arrest?
Answer. No.
Question by general Smallwood. Did you insist on being tried?
Answer. No.
Question by general Smallwood. Did captain Norwood persuade you to stand trial?
Answer. I believe he said that he would not have had the arrest withdrawn.
Question by general Smallwood. Did he say be could justify his conduct?
Answer. I do not remember.
Question by general Smallwood. Had you any conversation with colonel Adams on the subject of your arrest?
Answer. I had.
Question by general Smallwood. What was that conversation?
Answer. I do not recollect.
Question by general Smallwood. Was it similar to the conversation you had with colonel Woolford?
Answer. I believe it was, but am not certain.
Question by general Smallwood. Was this conversation with colonel Adams previous to the letter I wrote you?
Answer. I believe it was not, but am not certain; I think the conversation between colonel Adams and myself passed on his way to court-martial, I believe I had received the letter earlier.
Question by general Smallwood. Did you receive the letter the same day that the court sat?
Answer. I think it was on the morning of that day.
Question by general Smallwood. What time did the court sit?
[Page 59]Answer. I do not remember certainly, I think it was in the forenoon.
Question by the prisoner. Did you ever make any concessions to general Smallwood previous to your receiving the letter from him, or did you ever request any person to make concessions to him in your behalf?
Answer. Not that I remember.
Question by the prisoner. Did you in court plead guilty to the same charge that I did?
Answer. I believe I did, as I had not then been released from my arrest?
Question by the prisoner. Did you say that my justification was sufficient for you?
Answer. Not as I remember.
Question by general Smallwood. Were concessions ever asked from you?
Answer. Never, unless your letter requested them.
Question by general Smallwood. Was an acknowledgement of your error in writing asked as a necessary preliminary to your being released from your arrest?
Answer. Not unless your letter requested it.
Question by general Smallwood. Did captain Norwood dissuade you from acknowledging your error?
Answer. I do not recollect that he did.
The following was delivered by captain Eccleston, on oath, as an exact copy of the letter he received from general Smallwood.
YOU have been under my command almost ever since you commenced the soldier—Your uniform and consistent conduct, as an officer, hitherto has strongly recommended you to officers of all ranks, as an active, brave officer, and I might add, had excited my esteem for you; I was not less surprised at your deviation from that line of conduct, than I was embarrassed when I found myself constrained, in point of duty, to order an officer, who I entertained so [Page 60] high an opinion of, under an arrest, and I am persuaded, had you exercised your own judgment, you would not have fallen into the error. Combinations in an army have a dangerous tendency, even when they are concerted on just principles, but an officer should be extremely cautious how he enters into them when not justly grounded, and a commanding officer must be lost to all sense of honour and duty who does not check and discountenance such measures in every instance, and more particularly in the first. I had no other motive than this and to fix the precedent, and to discourage officers in future from being actuated by such a spirit of petulancy, and, I might justly add, licentiousness. If your judgment is convinced, I am satisfied, it will have as good a tendency as subjecting you to a trial. This you will signify to me in writing. and I shall mention in today's orders that you are convinced you was in an error, which will be a sufficient apology and justification to me to discharge you from your arrest, which shall be immediately done. And I remain, respectfully, Sir,
The following witnesses appeared in behalf of the United States, and were admitted by the court.
Captain Davidson deposes and says, That in the court-martial called at Chad's-Ford, for the trials of captains Norwood and Eccleston, captain Norwood accused general Smallwood with acting partially, in releasing captain Eccleston from his arrest and prosecuting him on the same charge; the general replied, that he released captain Eccleston on the application made to him by that gentleman's friends, and that he was ever willing to discharge from his arrest, an officer who was convinced of his having been in an error. The court had determined on the case of captain Norwood without hearing the witnesses to be adduced by general Smallwood, and had adjourned till next day; then the general attended with his witnesses, insisted on [Page 61] their being heard, and said, that if their testimonies were not admitted, he should be obliged to dissolve the court and continue captain Norwood in arrest.
Question by the court at the request of general Smallwood. How long had the court began their proceedings on the first day before general Smallwood appeared?
Answer. I think about two hours.
Question by the court at the request of general Smallwood. Did general Smallwood assign any reason for not attending sooner?
Answer. He did, but I do not recollect what those reasons were.
Question by the court at the request of general Smallwood. Did general Smallwood then inform the court that he had evidences to offer in behalf of the United States?
Answer. Yes.
Question by the court at the request of general Smallwood. Did they agree to hear those evidences?
Answer. The next day they did.
Question by the court at the request of general Smallwood. Did they the next day hear and insert them on their proceedings?
Answer. They did.
Question by the court at the request of general Smallwood. After the witnesses in behalf of the United States were adduced, did captain Norwood object to the court's determining on their testimonies?
Answer. He said he hoped they might, or would, determine on the proceedings of the day before.
Question by the court at the request of general Smallwood. Had any other testimony been taken the day before but at the request of captain Norwood?
Answer. I believe not; he had plead guilty to his charge.
Question by the court at the request of general Smallwood Did several members publicly object to considering the testimony in behalf of the United States?
[Page 62]Answer. There were objections made to it; I do not recollect whether they were made publicly or not.
Question by the prisoner. Did you ever hear me say any thing comprehended in the charges exhibited against me before this court?
Answer. I have heard you say that general Smallwood was partial in your case.
Question by the prisoner. Was captain Eccleston released before or after his trial?
Answer. Captain Eccleston had plead to his charge, but was not tried when he received a releasement, from his arrest.
Question by the prisoner. Had the court proceeded a [...] far in his trial as in mine?
Answer They had.
Question by the prisoner. Did I give in any other defence that day after captain Eccleston said that his defence was the same as mine?
Answer. Witnesses were afterwards examined, but I [...] not recollect whether you gave in a farther defence or no [...]
Question by the court. How long had the trial commenced when captain Eccleston received, a release from hi [...] arrest?
Answer. About half an hour.
Question by the court. Who was to prosecute these two captains?
Answer. General Smallwood, as I conceived.
Question by the court. Did the court inform genera [...] Smallwood they had met before they proceeded to business?
Answer. I do not remember that they did.
Question by the prisoner. Who arrested captain Eccleston and myself?
Answer. General Smallwood.
Question by the prisoner. Who was the commanding officer at that post?
Answer. General Smallwood.
[Page 63]Colonel Adams deposes and says, That he was president of the court by which captain Norwood was tried at Chad's-Ford; he plead guilty to his charge. Soon after the court sat, captain Eccleston, who was charged with the same facts, received a release from his arrest. The court then proceeded on the trial of captain Norwood. He was sentenced to be privately reprimanded by the commanding officer of the regiment to which he belonged. Previous to this, several gentlemen, one of whom was the deponent, had applied to general Smallwood in favour of captain Eccleston; the deponent had requested captain Eccleston to make some acknowledgment of his fault, and the captain replied that he would. Colonel Adams asked the captain, on the first day that the court proceeded to business, whether he should speak to general Smallwood in his favour; the captain requested him to do so; before the court sat, he applied to general Smallwood, who replied, he could do nothing in captain Eccleston's affair till he should receive an acknowledgment in writing; the deponent went to the court; after it had been sitting about an hour, captain Eccleston was called out, and immediately returned with a discharge from his arrest.
Question by the court at the request of general Smallwood. How long had the trial commenced when general Smallwood came?
Answer. Between two and three hours.
Question by the court at the request of general Smallwood. Did he assign any reason for not attending sooner?
Answer. He said he had some dispatches to make up before he could attend the court.
Question by the court at the request of general Smallwood. Did the court inform general Smallwood that they had tried captain Norwood?
Answer. No; they had not determined what his punishment should be.
Question by the court at the request of general Smallwood. Did general Smallwood insist on offering evidence in behalf of the United States?
[Page 64]Answer. Yes.
Question by the court at the request of general Smallwood. Did some of the court, at first, object to hear such evidence?
Answer. Some of the court did.
Question by the court at the request of general Smallwood. Did the court afterwards agree to adjourn and hear such evidence as general Smallwood had to offer.
Answer. Yes.
Question by the court at the request of general Smallwood. After the court convened, did they give general Smallwood notice of their proceeding on the trial?
Answer. In the morning I think I told the general I was going to court; I sent no messenger to him after the court was formed.
Question by the court at the request of general Smallwood. On refusal of several members to hear e [...]dence for the United States, what did general Smallwood [...]ay?
Answer. He said that he appeared as an evidence in behalf of the United States; that if he could not he hear he would dissolve the court, as he hoped to have justice done him as well as to any other man.
Question by the court at the request of general Smallwood. Did general Smallwood at any time in the course o [...] the trial accuse the court of partiality?
Answer. I did not hear him. He said he hoped there would not be a partial hearing.
Question by the court at the request of general Smallwood. After general Smallwood's witnesses were heard, di [...] captain Norwood object to their being considered by the court?
Answer. As captain Norwood was about to go out o [...] court, I think he said that he hoped the evidences adduce [...] by general Smallwood would not be considered with the for going proceedings of the court.
Question by the court at the request of general Smallwood. Did general Smallwood say a syllable about suspending [Page 65] or dissolving the court, till captain Norwood objected, and several members refused, in a boisterous, angry manner, to consider the evidence offered by general Smallwood in behalf of the United States?
Answer. No.
Question by the court at the request of general Smallwood. Did captain Norwood persist to the last in contending that he could justify his conduct?
Answer. I think he did; he said too that he thought himself particularly pointed at.
Question by the court at the request of general Smallwood. Did general Smallwood ask to give in a defence, or mention a syllable about one?
Answer. Not to my knowledge, he only requested to give in his evidence in behalf of the States.
Question by the court at the request of general Smallwood. Did captain Eccleston acknowledge his error and request you to intercede with general Smallwood to relieve him from his arrest?
Answer. He acknowledged it to me, and said he was about to write to the general; I did not see what he wrote.
Question by the court at the request of general Smallwood. Were applications made to general Smallwood in favour of captain Eccleston the day before his releasement?
Answer. I believe there were.
Question by the court at the request of general Smallwood. Were concessions ever requested from captain Eccleston or captain Norwood?
Answer. Not to my knowledge, only an acknowledgement of their error was requested.
Question by the prisoner. Did captain Eccleston plead guilty to the same charge that I did?
Answer. Yes.
Question by the prisoner. Did he say my defence was sufficient for him?
Answer. I do not remember.
[Page 66]Question by the prisoner. Did captain Eccleston request you to speak to the general in his favour, previous to his receiving a letter from the general?
Answer. I cannot tell.
Question by the prisoner. Were the proceedings of the court read to general Smallwood at his request when he first came into the room?
Answer. Yes.
Question by the prisoner. Did general Smallwood say he had any evidence to offer in behalf of the United States before the proceedings were read to him?
Answer. I cannat recollect.
Question by the prisoner. Did he say, I had reflected on his character, and did he offer any defence by way of justification against those reflections?
Answer. I did not hear him.
Major Muir deposes and says, That on the day preceding that on which the court sat for the trials of captains Norwood and Eccleston, colonel Woolford rode up to general Smallwood's quarters, the general was not at home, colonel Woolford told major Muir that he wished to see the general about captain Eccleston, who had desired him to apply to the general in his favour, colonel Woolford added, that captain Eccleston appeared to be much distressed, that he was now sensible he had been in an error, and was apprehensive he should be cashiered; major Muir desired colonel Woolford to ride to the general, and said he did not doubt but on such an acknowledgment captain Eccleston would be released; the colonel rode away, and in a short time after returned with the general, while they were conversing on that subject, major Muir heard general Smallwood say, that he could do nothing in the matter till he should receive an acknowledgment in writing. On the morning of captain Norwood's trial general Smallwood wrote to captain Eccleston, the captain returned a note to the general, in which, as well as the deponent can recollect, he acknowledged himself convinced that he had been in an error.
[Page 67]Question by the court. Did colonel Adams and colonel Ford also make application to general Smallwood in favour of captain Eccleston before the general wrote to him?
Answer. I believe they did.
Colonel Ford deposes and says, That the day preceding the trial of captain Eccleston, he was in conversation with that gentleman, and was asked by him, what he thought of his affair; colonel Ford replied, that he thought he was wrong, that in his opinion, he (captain Eccleston) ought to have obeyed those orders, captain Eccleston said he thought so too, that he had been informed so by others, and that he wished he had obeyed the order; the deponent informed general Smallwood what had passed, and requested the releasement of captain Eccleston; the general said that all he required was to convince the gentleman of his error, that the service might not be obstructed by similar conduct in future, he at the same time expressed his good opinion of captain Eccleston as an officer; the general likewise expressed a high opinion of captain Norwood as an officer, and wished that he too had made such applications, as he did not desire to proceed farther than to convince them that they were wrong.
Question by the court. Did captain Eccleston request you to apply to general Smallwood in his favour?
Answer. No.
Question by the court. Did general Smallwood know that this application was not requested by captain Eccleston?
Answer. I did not tell general Smallwood 'twas at the request of captain Eccleston that I applied, nor do I recollect telling him it was not.
Question by the court. Was your application to general Smallwood previous to his writing to captain Eccleston?
Answer. I believe it was.
The court adjourns till Thursday next 9 o'clock.
Thursday, September 24, 1778. Captain NORWOOD'S DEFENCE.
IT is w [...]th pleasure I find this very extraordinary trial drawing to a conclusion—a trial, which when traced back to its first principles, will be found more replete with malevolence and persecution than perhaps can be parellelled in any mi [...]it [...]ry process in a free country; and with permission o [...] this court, I will endeavour to trace to its foundation, the principles on which, and investigate the cause why, I have been cruelly kept in arrest, and dragged from court to court for near four months. Last winter it was my misfortune, witn very many ot [...]er officers of the Maryland division, to incur the displeasure of general Smallwood—a displeasure which arose, not from any misconduct or un officer-like behaviour of ours, but from a spirit of liberty, which prompted us to think as we pleased, and to speak as we thought of any man, however elevated his station might be— a spirit which I hope, in a free country, with men struggling for liberty, the strictest exertion and utmost stretch of military subordination will never be able totally to extinguish; for, was that to be the case, the very ends might be destroyed by the means, and to little purpose would you, gentlemen, forego the ease and pleasures of domestic felicity, to encounter the rugged dangers of war, if you are not allowed the privilege of arraigning the conduct of an officer, after the strictness of military discipline had obliged you to obey his commands. To your own good sense and feelings will I leave the fatal consequences of establishing such a principle, with a full assurance, that feeling at freemen, you will never, by your determination, fix a precedent so dangerous to liberty. It has been my misfortune (but perhaps it may hereafter be my glory) to have been singled out as an object of vengeance, for daring to arraign the conduct of a superior officer, for I am convinced, and I trust in the course of my defence I shall be able to make it appear to your satisfaction, that could I, with a tameness of spirit [Page 69] unbecoming an officer and gentleman, looked silent on, and have seen general Smallwood guilty of the most glaring acts of partiality to particular corps, and the most arbitr [...] ry and penurious detainure of a common property to himself—facts which he was every day publicly charged with through the garrison, and which, I have no doubt some of his sycophantic peck thanks carried [...]o his ear, as it was often said in their presence with that design—I say had I held my peace at su [...]h g [...]a [...]ing acts of injustice, I should not have drawn his pointed vengeance on my head; but, finding it necessary to quel a sp;rit of enquiry, and to make some sacrifice, in terro [...]em [...]h fixed on me, and, contrary to his usual caution imprud [...]ntly threatened to arrest me on the first occasion— [...] threat which his rank and determined malice gav [...] him the fullest opportunity to carry into execution. Accordingly, on the first o [...] May, I was ordered, for a service which I thought, and should still th [...]nk, (if the court had not otherways determined) was not consonant to our military constitution; I in part disobeyed the order, for which disobedience I was, with captain Eccleston, who was in the same predicament, arrested. To the charges in that arrest, from a full conviction we had been guilty of no breach of military law, we both plead guilty, and gave in our defence in justification; but before the court had determined on the question, captain Eccleston was released by a note from general Smallwood The court then proceeded on my trial passed a sentence, which I would here offer to the court, but could not obtain a copy of the proceedings of that court, though I perceive general Smallwood has. The severe execution of thi [...] sentence, and my expressing my feelings under it, is the oftensible cause why I now stand arraigned before you on the three following charges:
1st. Publicly declaring and implying, that I did not regard the censure of the commander in chief, because the facts set forth to him on my trial were mistated.
[Page 70]2dly. Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman in suggesting publicly that the facts were misrepresented which has an implied tendency either to reflect on his Excellency, or the court-martial, or general Smallwood, [...] the whole.
3dly. For declaring that general Smallwood has been guilty of partiality in my case, and that he is no gentleman, and that I would make it my business to decla [...] publicly, that general Smallwood was a partial man and no gentleman, every opportunity.
To the first two charges I have already refused to plead and find my objection entered on your proceedings, though over-ruled. I shall therefore only, on that head, remark that I flatter myself his Excellency will do me the justice to believe, when he sees my objection, that it did not proceed from any disrespect to his orders, but from a thorough conviction that I could not with propriety be [...] twice for the same offence. I find myself the more happy under my situation, as I cannot find one evidence either in this or the former court adduced in support of the [...] first charges. Into my defence on the third charge I ca [...] with alacrity, from a full conviction that the members o [...] this court will do strict justice to any individual who ma [...] ever be brought before them, however superior the ran [...] and abilities of his persecutor may be. The words charged therein to have been spoken I confess, and with the patient attention of the court shall attempt to justify; for what man, feeling a weight of unmerited obloquy, [...] bear it without complaining? if such a man there be, forbid it Heaven that they should ever disgrace a soldiers name.—Here give me leave to lead back the attention of the court to my first arrest on the 30th of May. I have already noticed to the court captain Eccleston's discharge before his trial—a discharge which the general insists wa [...] made in consequence of captain Eccleston's acknowledgment of his error, an acknowledgment which I shall endeavour to prove was extorted by the general's flattering [Page 71] letter to captain Eccleston—a letter which pretty plainly proves the general wished to discriminate between us, though we both stood charged with the same offence; otherways I am at a loss to know what the general means by saying, "I am persuaded had you exercised your own judgment, you would not have fallen into the error; combinations in an army have a dangerous tendency," &c. What inference can be drawn from this, but that the general supposed I had biassed captain Eccleston, or at least that I was in a combination against him. Charges which he can by no means prove, nor had he a right to infer, without confessing his partial conduct merited such combinations. However, the general, passing by the expressive language of his letter, wishes to establish the grounds of captain Eccleston's discharge on the application of the captain's friends—a shallow pretext at best, especially when such application was not made at the instance of captain Eccleston, though the general has attempted to prove, by his artful sifting and extorting the matter of evidence, the application to him on captain Eccleston's behalf was at the captain's special instance and prior to his, the general's, letter. Colonel Adams, it is true, swears that captain Eccleston did apply to him to intercede with the general, but does not say it was prior to the general's letter; and indeed it appears it was not; for at the time of the conversation, captain Eccleston told colonel Adams he was going to write to the general, or that he would write, and accordingly did; but it was at the pressing invitation contained in the general's own letter. With regard to colonel Woolford's and major Muir's testimonies, I beg leave to be silent, because, relying as I must do on these gentlemens honours, the only construction I shall venture to put on their testimonies is, that probably they have forgot, or were mistaken, as captain Eccleston remembers no such application, and it is scarcely probable the captain would ungratefully forget the mighty boon the colonel had obtained for him; and in his own testimony, as he would [Page 72] not contradict the colonel, he only modestly declares, that he [...]oes not remember any such application, but very well remembers he t [...]l [...] me, at the time of his receiving the general's letter, that he had made no application to the general himself, nor had he got any person to do it for him; nor indeed does it appear he ever intended it, or 'tis highly probable major Steward would have been the person to whom he would have applied for intercession, as he was the first person he had advised with in his dilemma Colonel Ford well remembers his conversation with captain Eccleston, which might have been prior to the captain's receipt of the general's letter. It is true, in that conversation the captain confesses he thought himself wrong, but expressed not the least desire to use colonel Ford's interest in his discharge, neither did he intimate the smallest desire to be released from his arrest, till he had received the general's letter. Here indeed, were I to make a comparison between captain Eccleston's conduct and my own, I might, without partiality, charge him with the highest degree of criminality, as he persisted in a known error, and I ignorantly persisted, in spite of pride and oppression, in what I thought was right.—I shall now take leave of the evidence adduced in this present trial, and once more turn back to remark on the general's conduct in course of my three several arrests under his persecution. In the first, after he had rescued captain Eccleston from his arrest, where he was equally exposed to the artillery of his (the general's) censure with myself, he appears so eager to hunt after my ruin, as, contrary to all precedent and form of good manners, to rush into court, and, in an authoritative stile, to order the proceedings to be read, though he was informed by the court they had gone through my trial, and just cleared the court to determine the sentence; and when he had heard them read insisted on being heard in behalf of the United States, though the issues were made up; neither was there in the least any evidence necessary, as I had plead guilty to the [Page 73] charge, and the court was sitting on the nature of my offence, and on the mode of my punishment, and finding upon the whole it was most probable his malevolent intentions would not be gratified, threatened to dissolve the court unless they would hear him and enter his defence among their proceedings. Whether this harangue had any effect on the court or no, I won't undertake to say, but this I may venture to say, that general Smallwood is the first commander in chief of any department, who has taken on himself the peculiar province of deputy judge-advocate, and commenced prosecutor in a court where he should always be reluctantly drawn even as an evidence. On my second trial, and on the same charges for which I now stand, in spite of general Smallwood's wish to criminate me on the two first articles, the court justly acquitted me of intentional guilt, though, as the words might carry the implied tendency, they sentenced me to a reprimand in general orders; and on the third charge they thought themselves incompetent to judge. Which sentence it pleased his Excellency to disapprove, though I have the happiness to find, by a letter his Excellency did me the honour to write me, that he entirely acquitted me of intentionally reflecting on himself.
On the third court, the one before which I now stand, you know yourselves the eagerness with which the general as endeavoured to criminate me, but, conscious of my truth and integrity, I can rely with the most settled composure on your unbiassed judgment, from a firm belief, that no gentlemen, convinced as I flatter myself you are of the prejudice and settled rancour of general Smallwood, will not condemn me for speaking of that prejudice and rancour with some degree of asperity.
THE court having consid [...]red the two fi [...] charges, and the evidence, are of opinion, that captain Norwood is guilty of saying that he did not regard the censure of the commander in chief, because the facts set forth to him on [Page 74] his trial were mistated, and are farther of opinion, that such an expression had a tendency to reflect on his Excellency, and on general Smallwood.
The court having considered the third charge, and the evidence, are of opinion, that captain Norwood's justification is not sufficient, and that his expressions, with respect to the character of general Smallwood, are totally groundless and without foundation. The court find captain Norwood guilty of breaches of the 2d article of the 2d section, and of the 5th article of the 18th section of the articles of war, and do sentence him to be discharged from the service.
THE unjust and unmerited aspersions cast out in a public manner by captain Norwood against my conduct and to the prejudice of my character, whilst acting officially in the discharge of my duty, induces me to rise and claim the indulgence of the court a few minutes, to recapitulate and set in a more comprehensive view, and clear point of light, my conduct and character, which I flatter myself are so fully supported and justified by unquestionable testimony, adduced so clearly in point on the occasion, that a farther illustration would seem unnecessary; but as it is the first instance through a various life, in which I have been employed in a public capacity from my earliest manhood, that ever my public or private character has been struck at, hope my anxiety to set my reputation in the clearest light may plead an excuse for the intrusion.
In the case of captain Norwood's trial at Chad's-Ford, for a most glaring breach of orders, (the proceedings on which have been exhibited to the present court-martial) it is obvious, from the testimony of colonel Woolford, colonel Ford, major Howard, and brigade-major Hitchcock, (particularly the latter, who from his post must have been best acquainted with the detail of that part of the army) [Page 75] that my orders, issued through the brigade-major, were regular, and ought to have been obligatory, because the service required it; and these gentlemen prove to demonstration, that the duty could be complied with in no other manner than was directed by those orders, without the highest injustice to both field and subaltern officers at that post; but captain Norwood not only refused to comply with the order, but plead guilty, and strenuously urged he could justify his conduct, in that case there could have been no misrepresentation of his conduct, as he so ungenteelly and unjustly asserts; the court found him guilty of all he was charged with, and sentenced him to be privately reprimanded by the commanding officer of his regiment, which, with the proceedings, were transmitted to general Washington for his consideration, and from the face of the proceedings, his Excellency disapproved the sentence, and censured captain Norwood in the following terms: "The commander in chief utterly disapproves the sentence, as altogether inadequate to the offence, the mutinous and dangerous spirit which actuated captain Norwood, in his opinion, merited the most exemplary punishment." Notwithstanding so fragrant a violation of a general order, calculated to aid the service, and his obstinate justification of his conduct, captain Norwood is at a loss to account for the censure passed on him, unless general Smallwood had misrepresented facts, and therefore publicly declares, without farther enquiry, or even that reserve and delicacy which should ever mark the conduct and character of an officer and a gentleman, that he does not regard the censure of the commander in chief, because general Smallwood had misrepresented facts to him.
Captain Norwood was charged for refusing to comply with a general order, issued expressly for the purpose of relieving the troops on piquet, founded in the necessity of the case, and which at that period could not otherwise be remedied, plead guilty to the charge, but urged in his defence, that the necessity comprehended in the latter part of [Page 76] the charge did not exist, notwithstanding the testimony of the above gentlemen proved the fact, and the propriety of this and every part of the charge, to demonstration, pursuant to which the court found him guilty, and sentenced him; it must therefore appear very extraordinary that I could misrepresent facts, when the court found him guilty of every fact with which he was charged, and proceeded to sentence him thereon as above, which the commander in chief utterly disapproved, as altogether inadequate to the offence; then what other inference could be deduced, but that the fallacy and absurdity of his assertion is too glaring to require a solid reply, a [...] it refutes itself, and clearly points out that it is utterly void of foundation.
This assertion of the captain's does not only convey an absolute reflection on my character, but has an implied tendency to reflect on the commander in chief, as it must be inferred, if the captain's words have any meaning at all, that his Excellency decided upon my misrepresentation, as he stiles it, and not on the proceedings of the court-martial, which would have been a manifest deviation from that line of conduct, and love of justice, which have ever most eminently influenced and distinguished his character; but, says captain Norwood, I had no intention to reflect on his Excellency, I meant only to reflect on general Smallwood; in public assertions and declarations of this nature, a man, even of captain Norwood's sense, certainly would not wish to place himself in the light of an ideot, who has no meaning annexed to his words; but the captain, if he is capable of rational reflection, must know it is not his intention, but his expressions, which must affect and wound characters, therefore it becomes his duty, as an officer and a gentleman, nay, I might add▪ as an honest citizen, to be more guarded in his expressions, for it is those only, in cases of slander (and not his intention) which he is amenable for, and to be criminated by, unless he could establish his favourite position, in that instance he might indeed strike at characters at large with impunity.
[Page 77]A drunken man is punished for saying and doing things which he might perhaps with more propriety urge (as the captain does) he did not mean to say or do; in like manner, if captain Norwood's petulancy excites him to revile characters, he is answerable for his unjust assertions, and not for his intentions: Least the court should think I dwell too long on this part of the charge, I will trespass no longer than to observe, that this assertion of the captain's is not only unjust, but such as he has not pretended to support, nor can he justify it upon any principle whatever, his conduct therefore has certainly been unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, by unjustly suggesting in public, that I had misrepresented facts to general Washington, which is not only a reflection on my character, but has an implied tendency to reflect on the commander in chief, and therefore make no doubt that the court, in this instance, will find him guilty, and sentence him according to his demerit.
Captain Norwood has also publicly asserted, that I have been guilty of partiality in his case, and that I am not a gentleman, and least these assertions should not have their full force and weight in that instance, he farther declares, that he would make it his particular duty to declare publicly in all companies that he should come into, that I was a partial man and no gentleman; these assertions have been proved by captain Brice and lieutenant Baily, but the captain contending publicly before the present and late court, whereof colonel Hazen was president, that he could justify those charges, renders the proof of these officers unnecessary; the charges are high and attrocious, the latter general and indefinite, and of such a nature, if justified, as must for ever blast and stamp the blackest infamy on the character of an officer, and the charge, if not supported, must be rendered still more flagrant, by being levelled at his commanding officer when in the official discharge of his duty; then how extremely cautious should the captain have been in thus venturing to ruin for ever the character of [...] superior, [Page 78] acting in the line of his duty. The latter charge, the most infamous and injurious, he has adduced no testimony in support of, yet I rest assured the court will consider its malignancy, and inflict an adequate and exemplary punishment, at present it requires no other notice from me but contempt, and the former he endeavours to support by adducing evidence to prove I was partial in relieving captain Eccleston from his arrest and prosecuting him on the same charge, but his witnesses only tend more clearly to prove his obstinately persisting in an error, and attempting to the last to justify his refractory conduct, and instead of establishing, combine more strongly with other testimony, to refute and falsify his assertions, which when he finds he cannot justify, actuated by the same principle of injustice, and a degree of casuistry peculiar to men of his cast, attempts to extort from his evidences that I accused the court at Chad's-Ford of partiality, and threatened to dissolve them, as if this procedure was any way connected with his unjust aspersions, but colonel Adams, who was president of that court, and whose duty it was upon so ungenteel an accusation to have reprehended me, and who most probably, from that consideration, must have remembered the circumstance, proves to demonstration that no such accusation was made, but on the contrary, that I insisted on the court to determine on the evidence at large on both sides, and not partially, which, when captain Norwood objected to, and two members, who are now his principal evidences, absolutely refused to include and determine on, then, and not till then, was [...] syllable mentioned about dissolving the court, as will appear by recurring to colonel Adams's deposition. The captain, with equal absurdity and quibbling, has endeavoured to prove I made a defence, when it will appear from the proceedings, and colonel Adams's testimony, that what he would fain call a defence, is the testimony taken on behalf of the United States. In justification of his assertion, and to fit the charge of partiality in this instance, he has asserted [Page 79] and to the last insisted on it, that the letter I wrote captain Eccleston was prior to any application made for and on his behalf, and was concerted to court him to make concessions, as he phrases it, though no such were ever required from either, as will appear from captain Eccleston's testimony and the letter itself, and notwithstanding I have repeatedly gave him my word of honour I had no such motive, and that I could prove by the testimony of colonels Woolford, Adams, Ford, majors Steward and Muir, that such application had been made, previous to my writing that letter, and that I required and received an acknowledgment in writing from captain Eccleston before he could be or was relieved from his arrest, yet these declarations, solemn and sacred as they were, have been disregarded, and I believe I might justly add, discredited, till the fact was so positively proved by these gentlemens testimonies; but the captain now says; I have been deceived, my evidences have not proved what they informed me they could; I readily grant that the captain may have been made a a cat's-paw of, perhaps to serve the secret purposes of more designing men, who may have had too much art and low cunning to stand forth themselves, but the captain's want of understanding and discernment to avoid their snares, certainly does not justify his unjust and illiberal reflections on my conduct and character.
Does not captain Norwood therefore merit the most exemplary punishment, by obstinately persisting in his errors, and being influenced by the assertions and persuasions of his supposed friends, after I had repeatedly pledged him my honour that application had been made on behalf and by the request of captain Eccleston before I wrote him the terms on which he would be released and that before I released him from his arrest I received his acknowledgment in writing, and further, that had he made an acknowledgment of his error, and Eccleston declined it, I would have released him and prosecuted Eccleston; can the captain then after this plead an excuse for propagating his [Page 80] slanders? If he is countenanced I would ask what officer reputation in the army will be secure? Will they not daily meet with insult and opposition in the discharge of their duty? And in that instance is not the offence doubly aggravated? And will not the most diligent and active officers in the service be most exposed to such illiberal attacks? Then may we not bid adieu to good order and discipline which is so salutary, and without which no army can long exist?
But the captain, after he finds he can no longer justify his assertions, surmises I have been right, and he now has nothing to blame me for, but not calling upon him for an [...] claircissment of his assertions before I arrested him; had I descended, after what is above recited, to make advance towards an explanation, then indeed the captain himself with propriety might have urged, that I came within the description of his last assertion.
Captain Norwood, and others, may have judged the space of time he has been under an arrest tedious, but I a [...] not to account for events and public exigences, I have eve [...] been ready to go into a hearing, when the orders of the commander in chief on public duty have not interfered [...] delay the trial, on which I have offered him every liberty and latitude of justifying his assertions, which indulgence I am conscious has been granted him.
I will trespass no longer on the patience of the co [...] than to observe, that captain Norwood having publicly declared and implied that he did not regard the censure of the commander in chief, because the facts set forth to his on his trial were mistated by general Smallwood, in which he has acted unbecoming an officer and a gentleman in publicly suggesting that the facts were misrepresented, and having declared that general Smallwood has been guilty of partiality in his case, and that he is no gentleman, and that he would make it his business to declare publicly that general Smallwood was a partial man and no gentleman every opportunity, which assertion he neither can nor ha [...] [Page 81] justified or supported, wherefore I conclude he has been guilty of all the charges exhibited against him, in the full intent and meaning of the words, and doubt not but that the court will find him guilty, and inflict such punishment as may be adequate to his offence.
N. B. As I have not seen captain Norwood's defence cannot reply to it, but beg leave to suggest to the court the propriety of its being confined to the evidence.
The above comments were offered by general Smallwood to the court-martial, who upon captain Norwood's objection, rejected them immediately without a reading, captain Norwood urging, if the general chose he might send them to head-quarters when the proceedings were given in, but as they were rejected by the court they were not exhibited there, and are only inserted here to illucidate the matter.
THE commander in chief, in justice to captain Norwood, declares, that he does not believe he had any intention to reflect upon him, though his expressions might have such a tendency, but as captain Norwood's conduct in other respects has been highly prejudicial to good order and military discipline, and inconsistent with the respect due his superior officer, he approves the sentence of the court.
REMARKS UPON CAPTAIN NORWOOD'S DEFENCE AND CONDUCT.
TO THE PUBLIC.
IN the beginning of captain Norwood's defence he says, "It is with pleasure I find this very extraordinary trial drawing to a conclusion—a trial which, when traced back to its first principles, will be found more replete with malevolence and persecution, than perhaps can be parallelled in any military process in a free country—and with permission of this court, I will endeavour to trace to its foundation the principles on which, and investigate the cause why, I have been cruelly kept in arrest, and dragged from court to court for near four months."
Here I would beg leave to remark, that the captain must entertain a high opinion of his own importance, because I would not suffer him with impunity to commit a breach of orders, and revile my character, he therefore roundly asserts, and looks upon my prosecution to obtain justice and set my reputation in a clear light, to be dictated by malice and a spirit of persecution—his strange inconsistency and want of candour must appear in a very striking light, from the following certificate under the hand of major Muir, the facts recited in which occurred immediately after the [Page 84] witnesses had all been examined, the proceedings closed, and a time limited for him to bring in his defence.
After the witnesses had all appeared, and had all been examined before the court, and a certain time given to captain Norwood to make his defence, in passing towards the door with myself, he exclaimed, that it was very surprising!—that he believed they had been trying to put the general and himself by the ears, and that had it not been for two or three persons, he believed they would have been friends now. I observed he (captain Norwood) had been misinformed; he said he had, and that his witnesses had not supported what they informed him they could.—I made answer, the general was not to blame as to that, for application was made to him by several before captain Eccleston was released from his arrest—he replied, he did not blame the general so much now, but from the representation made to him by captain Eccleston, who informed him that he ever did make concessions, acknowledge himself in fault, or make application to be released from his arrest, nor requested of any person to make application for him, that I, or any judicious or impartial man, would think the general partial, by releasing Eccleston and prosecuting him on the same charge, and asked me, if it had been my case, whether I should not have thought the same? I answered him, relying on captain Eccleston's representation, it's very probable I should, but I was sorry he did not make farther enquiry, or come to an explanation, when he mentioned it to the general at Chad's-Ford, and the general gave him his word of honour that application was made to him before he released Eccleston from his arrest—he said he did not believe the general, as Eccleston had so positively assured him to the contrary, and that from the intimacy subsisting between them, and the good opinion he entertained of him, he could not doubt the truth of what he had asserted, but he said he should ever be of opinion that the general had a private pique against him; I assured him I did not think so, for I had [Page 85] heard the general speak of him as an officer, as favourably as ever I did of any in the line—Yes, he said, I might as an officer, but—I told him I never heard the general say any thing against him, more than that he was of a hasty fractious disposition; he said he was conscious he had a private pique against him, and should ever remain of that opinion; upon which our conversation ended.
I shall leave the public to judge from his self conviction expressed to major Muir at the above time, what principles he must have been actuated by, in dictating his defence, fraught with illiberal abuse and wanton scurrility, beyond what was contained in his original assertions, on which he was prosecuted; he also insists I have had a private pique against him—Has he through the course of the prosecution made appear such pique ever existed; has he proved any of his assertions? He certainly has done neither; and does it not appear, that he had the liberty of justification in the fullest extent? I shall then let it rest with the impartial public to decide on his ingenuous conduct, and the justice of his insinuations, which, as his reputation was at stake in the event, he must have had a very strong desire to justify—and I submit to the same tribunal to determine, whether his interest and malice would not have excited him to establish in the course of his trial, which as he did not, after every latitude of justification had been given, has he not deservedly suffered the fate which is the just desert of all such spirits, who wantonly sport with characters, and without the least foundation dabble in detraction? I shall therefore treat his defence with the contempt it deserves, by taking no further notice of it, than to make some observations on the following part, which contains a very dangerous position, under the establishment of which no man's character can remain secure.
[Page 86]"Last winter it was my misfortune, with very many other officers of the Maryland division, to incur the displeasure of general Smallwood—a displeasure which arose, not from any misconduct or un-officer-like behaviour of ours, but from a spirit of liberty, which prompted us to think as we pleased, and to speak as we thought of any man, however elevated his station might be—a spirit which I hope, in a free country, with men struggling for liberty, the strictest exertion and utmost stretch of military subordination will never be able totally to extinguish."
The captain attempts to compliment himself at the expence of his judgment and candour, for the principles he lays down here, are as subversive of good order and discipline, as his conduct has been found to be un-officer-like —through the greater part of his defence, the reader will observe, that he and his accomplices in the composition, content themselves with low insinuations and humble scurrility, but here, with their aid, he breaks forth into heroics, and bursting asunder all obligations, moral, civil, and military, advances a new, but to him favourite position—that from the principles of liberty, he had a right to think and speak of men and their characters as he pleased.
This doctrine puts me in mind of the poor ignorant illiterate soldiers, when first enlisted into the American army, who judged, because they were engaged in the noble cause of liberty, they had a right to indulge themselves in every act of licentiousness, and therefore, when military discipline had justly brought them to the halberds, to suffer for their offences, used to cry out—Is this liberty! is this liberty!
Nor indeed does the sallies of the captain and his accomplices here, make him and them appear unlike to Solomon's [...]ool, who claimed a right to scatter [...]irebrands, ar [...]o [...]s, and death, and then say am I not in sport?— Liberty [...] object, the noble object for which we are contending, which in the pursuit justifies every extreme.
[Page 87]It has been a prevailing principle and practice with the captain and his associates, to think of men and their characters as they pleased, and to insinuate their opinions in a particular circle as matters of fact, though with such reserve and caution, that the authority could not be come at; but the captain in this instance having been less circumspect, was caught wandering out of his tract.
When a commanding officer becomes obnoxious to men of this cast, by faithfully discharging his duty, and exacting that of others for the public good, despairing of injuring his reputation by manly and open accusations, this lurking method is adopted, to remove, or at least lessen the weight of an object so disgusting. The captain and his associates come truly under this description—their self-sufficiency naturally renders them impatient of controul, blind to qualifications in others, and restless under any command, as they have imbibed so transcendent an opinion of their own importance and capacity—perhaps it would not be very difficult to point out geniuses of this class in our line, who have been restless and dissati [...]fied under the command of almost every general officer under whose immediate command they have served—nor have the excellent orders of the commander in chief in every instance been implicitly obeyed, or escaped their nice distinctions and criticisms—such restless spirits are often real misfortunes even in civil society, but become pests in an army.
This secure mode of stabbing my character in the dark, was first essayed, whilst the Maryland troops under my command garrisoned Wilmington, where I twice called in a public manner for the authors, and challenged them to point out a single instance, in which I had acted unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, as will appear from the following certificates; but not a man has ever stood forth.
We, the subscribers, were present in the course of colonel Hall's trial at Wilmington, in March, 1778, in presence of the court and a number of officers, after the witnesses [Page 88] had nearly been examined, general Smallwood requested to be heard by the court, and was admitted—at which time, among other things, he observed, that he was informed, that many insinuations in private were suggested and circulated in the garrison to his disadvantage, urging that it was mean and scandalous to take that low, unjust dirty mode of injuring his character—That as no one officer in the division had been manly or genteel enough to mention the exceptionable parts of his conduct to him, he took that public method of calling on them to point out their objections to his command, adding, that if they had weight, and he could not refute them, or if they cou [...]d make appear that he had in any one instance acted unbecoming the character of an officer and a gentleman, he would quit the division and the service, declaring he did not wish, nor would not remain a day longer to their just disgust—but no person at that time, nor since as we have heard, has ever stood forth.
- W. RICHARDSON, Col. 5th M. Reg.
- THO. WOOLFORD, Lieut. Col. 2d M. Reg.
- JOHN STEWARD, Major Light Inf.
- ALEX. ROXBURGH, Capt. 1st M. Reg.
In the winter of 1778, whilst the Maryland division lay in Wilmington, a libel was circulated there, tending to revile general Smallwood's character; upon which the general, calling the officers of the garrison together, at which meeting we were present with many others, when the general demanding their attention, acquainted them, as far as had come to his knowledge, with the circumstances of the libel, urging, that it was not only false and malicious, but one of the basest modes of stabbing a character in the dark, adding, that the purport of calling that meeting was, that being very confident the author must be present, he said he took that public method of calling upon him to stand forth, and avow it, and of pronouncing him a coward, a liar, and a scoundrel—notwithstanding which, if [Page 89] the author would stand forth, he would take no further advantage, than putting himself upon a level with him, no person acknowledging or avowing the libel, the general, after waiting some time, in which there was much conversation, and the company seemed much agitated— the general then said, if the author was present, as he believed him to be, and could pocket the appellations of coward, liar, and scoundrel, he was not worth his further enquiry; he should only remark, that as he believed many officers present were no strangers to the person and transactions, he only had to beg, that they would in future have a proper sense of their own dignity, by avoiding his company and conversation, as a coward, a liar, and a scoundrel.
- J. GUNBY, Col. 7th M. Reg.
- ARCH. ANDERSON, Major 3d M. R.
- ALEX. ROXBURGH, Capt. 1st M. R.
- JOHN JORDAN, Capt. 1st M. R.
- LEVIN HANDY, Capt. 5th M. R.
- A. GROSH, Capt 7th M. R.
- W. BEATTY, Capt. 7th M. R.
- J. BRICE, Capt. 3d M. R.
It may be observed, that on the 29th day of September last, captain Norwood was dismissed the service, on the preceding charges, as well appear from the foregoing proceedings, sentence of the court-martial, and his Excellency general Washington's approbation thereof.
It will also appear, that the testimony adduced, in course of the prosecution, most clearly refutes his illiberal assertions, and establishes his malignancy to demonstration, and although his justification was allowed in the fullest extent, yet he was unable to establish any of his slanders; and notwithstanding his conviction of the impropriety of his conduct was so strongly manifested in his conversation with major Muir, he still remained callous, and destitute of that candour, which always actuates the generous mind [Page 90] to acknowledge an error; this, by the strict rules of honour, ought to have been the first, and now is the only method, by which he can expect to regain the favour of his country, or the character of a gentleman; but previous to this candid and eligible mode, he vainly endeavoured to get reinstated in his rank by the following weak stratagem,—the captain, with the aid of his associates, had the art and address, to prevail on many well disposed officers in the second Maryland brigade, and some few in the first, to join them in a petition for his restoration, which, I believe, from pure motives of humanity, they were led incautiously to sign, without adverting to the impropriety of the measure, whilst he lay under such a stigma, which his Excellency rejected, referring him to me, upon a presumption, as it may be supposed, that there was an impropriety in reinstating, until he had first placed himself in the light of a gentleman, by renouncing his errors, and acknowledging his faults.—Previous to this, I have understood an essay not less absurd was made by brigade petition, for his release from arrest before he was tried.
Here the captain and his triumvirate must have been greatly chagrined, and experienced the corroding anxiety of disappointed expectations; not to mention their wa [...] of sense in this instance, it is doubtful whether they have discovered a greater sha [...]e of vanity, or want of just sentiments of honour, as in the first instance they must have been vain and short sighted indeed to expect either to have betrayed, or through their weight and influence blessed a man of the commander in chief's discernment and integrity, into such a glaring impropriety, even before the captain had reinstated himself in his, or their good opinion, by any act of his, becoming a gentleman—or in the latter instance they must have lessened themselves, and los [...] sight of that sense of honour, which should ever actuate the officer, and restrain him from even countenancing, much l [...]ss supporting or justifying another, who had forfeited [Page 91] his name and rank as such by defamation, which when called on, he could not justify, therefore must have been considered by them justly cashier'd.
The commander in chief, and the public, must entertain a high opinion of this masterly manoeuvre for the captain's restoration, and he will no doubt ever retain the strongest impressions of the everlasting obligation he owes on this occasion to his associates, who made so frank a sacrifice of their sentiments of honour and good sense to save him, without reducing him to the disagreeable necessity of acting like a gentleman, by retracting his assertions, and making suitable acknowledgments, which ought alone to have reinstated him in their good opinion; and before this, it might have been more consistent with their reputation and sense of honour, to have withheld their petition, nor could this have been any diminution to the captain's present character, but rather a mark of spirit, and candour, two essentials in the composition of a man of honour.
This circumstance of the commander in chief's referring the captain to me, and indeed—impliedly requiring him to act like a gentleman, before he could be restored to his rank, however mortifying, was yet thought eligible to save him in the last resort, after every other effort and expedient had failed;—and it appears from doctor Dorse [...], that the captain informed him this measure was strongly recommended by the officers of the second brigade, except two; whether those were his guardian angels, and interested in the event, or by what other motives they were influenced, rests with the public to judge; however humiliating this step was, the captain at length condescended to request doctor Dorsey's m [...]iation, whose amiable disposition pointed him out as a proper person to pave the way to his concessions and restoration. The transactions and occurrences thereon will be illucidated, and fully explained by the underwritten certificates, attested under the hands of doctor Dorsey, colonels Richardson, Gunby, [Page 92] captains Winder and Hawkins, who were privy to the transactions respectively included in their attestations, which I would beg leave to refer the reader to.
Whilst the Maryland division lay at Fish-Kill, at the request of captain Norwood, I waited upon general Smallwood with the following note:
Shall be glad to see you in the morning at my sick quarters. Doctor Dorsey will wait on you.
At the same time informing the general, that captain Norwood appeared to be sensible of the impropriety of his conduct, was anxious and desirous of obtaining an interview, by which he would have an opportunity of making necessary acknowledgments, and be reinstated; this measure, the captain observed, was recommended by many officers in the second brigade, though he believed colonel Hall and lieutenant-colonel Smith were averse to it; the general then told me he was glad the captain was undeceived, and as he was sensible of his errors, and disposed to retract them, that he ever retained a disposition to forgive, urging, that he never blamed captain Norwood so much as others, by whom he believed he had been misled, and made an instrument to serve their secret but low purposes, that he would have no objections to an intereiew, and after suitable acknowledgments, he would use his endeavours to restore him to his rank; upon this we parted—The next morning I attended upon the general, at the request of the captain, to solicit an interview that morning, the troops being about to move to New-H [...]c [...]ensack, the general engaged, desired I would wait till he got them on the march, when he should have leisure to speak with me; accordingly the troops marching off, the general went into a private room, calling upon colonels Richardson, Gunby, captains [Page 93] Winder, Hawkins, and myself, and reading the above note, told me it would not justify his seeing captain Norwood, as it did not express the intention of the interview, the captain's motives, or desire of making acknowledgements, informing me he would wait till I could ride to captain Norwood, and bring a letter to this purport, if he chose to write; I immediately went, and returned with the following note from captain Norwood:
AS I have asserted things injurious to your character, from informations which I am now sensible are false, desirous of making such concessions as one gentleman would to another on similar cases, should esteem it a favour if you will ride over to my quarters, as I am not in a situation to wait on you.
Which the general observed would justify his waiting on captain Norwood, and called on the above officers and myself to be privy to the interview; we all went with the general to the captain's quarters, after the usual ceremony, the captain told the general that he was desirous of settling the foolish and unhappy dispute which had so long subsisted between them, the general replied, that after proper concessions he was willing to forgive the injuries offered, the captain said he was sorry for what had passed, and that he had been deceived by false informations, the general asked him what could induce him to be so scurrilous in his defence? The captain answered he w [...] influenced by passion, he likewise asked him what he meant by saying he was an arbitrary detainer of common property? The captain told him he alluded to a horse, the general informed him he had accounted with the public for the horse, the general then asked him if he had not been aided or assisted in writing the defence? The captain assured him he had not, the general told him he must be candid with him, [Page 94] that he could not believe it without he pawned his most sacred honour, the captain hesitated, and I immediately lef [...] the room, and was no farther privy to the interview—The next morning I waited upon the captain, who instantly expressed a desire to know what had passed between him and the general, declaring he had been delirious, and remembered nothing that had passed, hoping he had said nothing inconsistent; I recapitulated what had passed between him and the general, he swore he had rather lose five hundred pounds than to have made the most trifling concession, that it never was his thought or intention— jocosely replied, your are certainly delirious now, and were in your senses then.
On the 13th October, 1778, wc were (together with doctor Dorsey) present at an interview between general Smallwood and captain Norwood, in consequence of a no [...] from the captain to the general, of that date, requesting he would ride to the captain's quarters, as he was not in a situation to wait on the general; we found the captain first in bed, and much reduced, but he appeared to be in perfect possession of his mind and senses; after the usual ceremonies were over, the captain told the general he had requested that interview in order to settle the unhappy difference which had taken place between them, that he was sensible he had, by false informations, been led to assert things injurious to the general's character, and was desirous of making such concessions as one gentleman would [...] another in like cases. The general observed, that the captain had done him great injury, not only in his first assertions, but also by expressions in his defence before the court-martial, and asked him what influenced him to exhibit such a scurrilous defence, after his conversation with major Muir? The captain said he was very angry at being kept so long in arrest, the general observed it was not him but the operations of the campaign, which delayed his [Page 95] trial, the captain said he was sensible he had been wrong, and wished to settle it, that it might be forgot, as he was desirous of being on friendly terms with all men, the general replied he was very willing to settle it upon reputable terms, he then asked the captain what he meant by inserting in his defence that the general was an arbitrary detainer of public property? The captain answered, that he alluded only to a horse in the general's possession, which he had understood belonged to the public, the general observed that this was equally unjust with his other assertions, and as ill founded, for that he had credited the public for the horse in his general account, and had sufficiently cleared up that matter in Wilmington; the general then asked the captain who assisted him in composing his defence? The captain replied he wrote it himself, the general begged he would excuse him, he did not mean to distress him, but was certain he must have had assistance, observing that the language and diction was very different from that used in his other writings, and told the captain he should, as a preliminary to a reconciliation, require him, on his most sacred honour, to discover his accomplices, declaring that he would not suffer him or them, or any set of men whatever, to sport with his character or reputation; the captain paused—then said it was scarce worth while—he could not say but there were some words not his own, the general said that was one point he should, insist on, and that the captain should renounce and retract his assertions, and the exceptionable parts of his defence; the captain said he was now sensible he had been misinformed, and led into a deception, and he was willing to retract his assertions, the general said he would send him the terms in writing on which he would consent to a reconciliation, and when the captain complied with them, he would use his influence to have him restored to his command; the general then took leave of the captain and returned to the troops.
- W.RICHARDSON, Col.
- JOHN GUNBY, Col.
- LEV. WINDER, Capt.
- JOHN HAWKINS, Capt.
On my first trial at Chad's-Ford, for a breach of general Smallwood's orders, in which I was found guilty, and sentenced by the court martial to be privately reprimanded by the commanding officer of the regiment, which sentence, with the proceedings of the court, was transmitted to general Washington, who disapproved the sentence in the following terms; "The commander in chief utterly disapproves the sentence, as altogether inadequate to the offence, the mutinous and dangerous spirit which actuated captain Norwood, merited, in his opinion, the most exemplary punishment." Which having irritated me, in the warmth of passion I publicly declared, that I did not regard general Washington's censure, because general Smallwood had misrepresented facts to him, and being stimulated by the same degree of heat, publicly declared that general Smallwood was guilty of partiality, and that he was not a gentleman, and that I should make it my particular business, in all public companies where I should happen, [...] declare he was a partial man, and not a gentleman; which assertions I have not been able to justify, and which, from the evidence adduced in the course of the trial, I am sensible were utterly groundless and void of foundation; and towards the close of the trial, after all the evidences had been examined, I acknowledged to major Muir, that I found the general not so much to blame as I thought he was, and that I had been deceived and misinformed, a [...] which, notwithstanding this candid declaration to the major, I was led by the same intemperate heat, and the aid of some accomplices, to exhibit to the court a defence fraught with illiberal reflections and unjustifiable imputations, not included in the above assertions, particularly charging him with premeditated rancour, malicious persecution, the most glaring acts of partiality to particular corps, and the most arbitrary and penurious detainure of a common property, and other imputations contained in the said defence, too tedious to enumerate here, all of which I found, and am now conscious are equally groundless and [Page 97] void of foundation, and though they have been maliciously asserted, yet I find I have been misinformed, and that these imputations can in no one instance be supported or justified; and being now truly sensible that I was actuated by passion, misled by party and unjust informations, and strongly impressed with a just sense of the impropriety of my conduct, and the injustice of such unmerited reflections cast out by me against general Smallwood's conduct and character, and in justice to both, I now think it a duty incumbent on me to declare, that the above assertions and reflections contained in the said defence, are altogether unjust and void of foundation, and do take this method publicly of acknowledging my error, renouncing and retracting my assertions above recited, and the unjust, indelicate, and illiberal aspersions contained in the said defence, tending to revile the conduct and character of general Smallwood, and do beg his pardon, and to render further justice to his character, do request that these acknowledgments and concessions may be published in general orders, to remove any unfavourable impressions, which the malignancy of such imputations may have excited. Given under my hand, at the camp at Fish-Kill, this [...] day of [...] 1778.
In presence of [...]
I hereby certify, that the above are verbatim, and expressly the terms of captain Norwood's recantation, which I saw general Smallwood deliver to captain Hawkins, to be carried to captain Norwood.
The above certified by major Muir, are verbatim, and expressly the terms of captain Norwood's recantation, which general Smallwood delivered me to carry to him to sign, which I immediately went and shewed him, and he read them over, and said he would choose to keep them a day or two to consider on; I told him the general gave [Page 98] me no instructions to leave them, but I said if he, did not choose to sign them, I would take them back to the general, and inform him of it, and if he would consent, I would ride out the next day and leave them with him, or if not, I would give him an answer; and I then returned to the general and let him know what had passed; he said he should have no objection to his having them, was he left to his own judgment, but he imagined he wanted to consult his associates, who would dissuade him from signing them, as they had constantly misled him, adding, I might tell him, if he chose to come to camp, he might peruse and consider them as long as he pleased, and if he found any just objection, and would point it out, it should be altered, the general urging he had nothing in view, but the just and necessary reserves to secure his reputation, and in doing that, would wish to wound captain Norwood's feelings as little as possible, which the next day I communicated to him, when he told me, he did not remember any thing in them he could object to, and if captain Winder and myself would bring them out next morning, he would give them a reading, and determine whether he would sign them or not; I told him I was not certain I could come out, but would acquaint captain Winder, and if I could come I would. I then came to camp and acquainted captain Winder, who did not determine to [...] whether he could go or not, I observing to him that I could not go.
At both the above times captain Norwood appeared to be perfectly in his senses—before I waited on him the first time, the general told me he should he believed insist on his giving up his accomplices, which I told the captain, who said the general, he thought, had nothing to do with that, it was quite out of the question. The second time I went, the general said nothing on this head: the division remained after this at Fish-Kill about a fortnight, when it crossed the North river upon the approach of the convention troops, in which time I heard that captain Norwood [Page 99] was frequently in camp, but I was not farther concerned in the transaction.
The captain affected to doctor Dorsey, and still affects to have been out of his senses at the interview; but notwithstanding his capacity to save appearances, and the repletion of low cunning and prevarication, which in every other instance has marked his conduct, yet this barefaced subterfuge deserves not even that appellation. The candid reader will judge for himself, and must remark from the captain's letters, and the above certificates, a consistency which by no means would indicate the delirium he affected —Did he not rather discover the effects of secret influence in the interval between the interview and the doctor's visit? But he leaves us in doubt whether we ought to condemn his judgment or admire his attachment, as in the first instance he has been blind to a just sense of honour, and to every act of candour, or in the latter has voluntarily sacrificed his reputation to screen his lurking coadjutors—if the latter were his motives, the generous mind must pity his weakness, but disdain the principles which must have actuated his supposed friends, who could suffer him to make such a sacrifice, to screen them, after he had perhaps been made the instrument of their secret purposes.
The captain now quits the army, and, as the de [...]ier resort for his reputation, carries home and publishes the following pompous certificate:
The officers of the 2d Maryland brigade do testify, that captain Norwood, who is discharged the service by the sentence of a court-martial, on a disagreement with general Smallwood, during the campaigns in which he served with us, has ever conducted himself in such a manner as to command our warmest friendship and esteem as an officer of merit and a man of honour; and that notwithstanding his dismission, is, and ought to be esteemed as a gentleman, [Page 100] and valued as a warm friend and advocate for the liberties of his country.
Second regiment. Thomas Price, colonel; Lilburn Williams, captain; James M'Calmont, surgeon; Hezekiah F [...]rd, ensign; Edward Edgerly, adjutant; John Gassaway, lieutenant; Edward Dy [...]r, lieutenant, and B. Q. M Benjamin P [...]ce lieutenant; John Reac, ensign; James Ewing, lieutenant.
Four [...]h regim [...]nt. Josi [...] Carvil [...], colonel; Samuel Smit [...], lieutenant colonel; Jo [...] E [...]ward, major; Alexander L. [...]mith, captain; Thomas L [...]nsdale, captain; Joseph Burges, captain; Edward O [...]cham, captain; James Smith, l [...]eutenant; [...]h [...] S. Belt, lieutenant; Edward Spurrier, lieutenant; [...]h [...]mas Cr [...]mwell, lieutenant; A [...] [...]oops, lieutenant; Stephen Shelmerdine, lieutenant; John Hamilton, ensig [...]; Nathaniel Twining, ensign; Jehu Bowen, ensign; Parker H Lee, ensign; John Hartshorn, adjutant; Richard Pin [...]ell, surgeon; William Riley, lieutenant.
Sixth regiment. Otho H. Williams, colonel; Benjamin Ford, lieutenant-colonel; Andrew Hynes, captain; Henry Dobson, captain; James Bruff, lieutenant; Joshua Miles, captain; Jacob Norris, lieutenant; Richard Donovan, adjutant; George Jacobs, lieutenant; Benjamin Wright, lieutenant; Charles Beaven, lieutenant; Thomas Parran, surgeon.
German regiment. Ludwick Weltner, lieutenant-colonel; Daniel Buckhoses, major; George Hubley, captain▪ Peter Boyer, captain; Charles Baltzell, captain; Bernard Hubley, captain; Michael Boyer, captain-lieutenant; Martin Shugart, lieutenant; Christian Myers, captain; James I. Armstrong, chaplain.
This certificate was said to be voluntary—is might [...]e [...]o —but my partiality for most of the signers, induces one to believe, they did not advert to the tendency, or use for which it was calculated. Let it suffice to remark, that the simplicity and arrogance of the measure, equally expose the [Page 101] subscribers, and strongly indicate their inadvertency, as well as absence, at that period, in point of understanding, delicacy, and just sentiments of honour—Could these gentlemen or the captain himself suppose, that this important certificate in his favour would supersede and contravene the impartial and solemn decisions of a court-martial and the commander in chief on his conduct—might not they, in the omnipotence of their power, and disposition for securing the blasted reputation of their justly cashiered friend, have better decreed, that the commander in chief and courts-martial had no exclusive right of determining a point contrary to their sovereign opinions—or might not these gentlemen with equal propriety, in the plenitude of their omniscience, establish an office to grant certificates or even dispensations, upon the same exclusive principle, to unfortunate officers, who (notwithstanding their inclination and opinion to the contrary) might have been deservedly broke for dishonourable conduct.
How much more noble the conduct, and just the distinction, made pretty generally by the field, captains and subaltern officers in the regiments of the first brigade, particularly those present of the third, who, I have understood, to a man, when the busy advocate presented the certificate, told him, with a frank [...]ess becoming the candour and spirit of officers, they wished to sign any thing in favour of captain Norwood, but could not do it consistent with their honour, till he had first placed himself in the light of a gentleman, by making concessions, and retracting his unjust assertions, which he had not been able to justify when called upon. This distinction I am persuaded would have been made by most of the signers, had they reflected, that offering such a certificate to be signed, previous to this step, was an insult to their understanding, repugnant to a just sense of honour, and at least a mark of indelicacy, disrespect, and inattention to the opinions of the commander in chief and court-martial—but in future this may to a lesson to the well disposed of them, to be more consistent, [Page 102] by being properly guarded against artifice and low cunning.
On the approach of the convention troops at Fish-Kill his Excellency general Washington ordered the Maryland troops to cross the North river to Newburgh, which they did, the first brigade on the 23d, and the second on the 24th of November last, and upon the arrival of the first division of prisoners there, on the morning of the 25th, the 2d brigade, under the baron de K [...], was to take post at Smith's-Tavern at the entrance [...] Smith's-Clove; and the first brigade under my command at Chester near Goshen, to cover the rout and escort [...] the prisoners, to guard the passes over the mountains, [...] prevent their desertion, or guard against a rescue, ordering us to remain for these purposes, until the rear division [...] convention troops had passed Chester, and then proceed to Middle-Brook. These orders were pointed, and did not admit the absence of either of the commandants, particularly myself, who, while at that post, had not a field officer in my brigade. The rear division of prisoners passed the post at Chester on the 8th of December, and the first brigade marched on the ninth in their rear, and arrived at Middle-Brook on the 20th, after crossing the North river. During this interval I never heard of the captain (he was supposed to be gone home) until my arrival at Middle-Brook—here I was informed he had been lately for some days at Elizabeth-Town (of which he gave me no intimation) in company with colonel Hall and Mr. Benedict Hall the colonel's brother.
On the 20th of December, the following note enclosing the captain's sealed letter was sent to the quarters marked for me, before I had reached them, which I received on the 21st.
Colonel Williams presents his compliments to general Smallwood, and encloses him a letter which was directed to his care by captain Norwood at Elizabeth-Town.
Sunday, 20th December, 1778.
YOUR propositions as a condition of my being reinstated was adding insult to injury, my resentment for your ill treatment did not require such a stimulus, though my delaying it and writing you a letter, dictated in my ill and enfeebled state by a misjudging friend, might lead you into that erroneous opinion, both which errors sprung from the same grounds, for had not my illness prevented, I should have demanded of you satisfaction for the injuries you had done me as soon as the brigade petition in my favour was rejected by his Excellency, which I conceived it was when I saw I was referred to your generosity; which opinion I am persuaded any gentleman would be of, who should see your conditions for reinstating me, conditions which would heap infamy on assassins and pickpockets, by breaking that band of faith which men of honour ought to hold dearer than their lives; it will be in vain for you to hope to bury the infamy ot your propositions by destroying the paper, the principles of them lives in my memory, and shall be faithfully reported; I have waited here these ten days with the hopes of seeing you, but having just learnt that you will be down in Maryland this winter, and being extremely anxious to get home, I have delayed my satisfaction till you come to Baltimore when I have no doubt you will do me that justice your injuries and insults entitles me to demand.
Here indeed the captain exhibits a singular degree of modesty, and must have supposed me inspired with a spirit of divination; his modesty appears in this, that although he came several days into our encampment at Fish-Kill, and by my marque, where I resided, yet he never thought proper to give me the least intimation of his designs, nor did he ever, until he wrote the above letter at Elizabeth-Town, in which he takes this method of insinuating his faint and unmeaning challenge, which he must have [Page 104] known I could not receive, nor does it appear he intended I should, until he got into Maryland.
How he could wait ten days at Elizabeth-Town, in expectation of seeing me there, without supposing me inspired, seems mysterious, for the plain matter of fact is thus—I was posted at Chester (for the purposes above recited) at least sixty miles from Elizabeth-Town, which lay entirely out of our rout to Middle-Brook, which post he must know I could not quit without a breach of the orden of the commander in chief, until the rear division of the prisoners passed, which he must have been sensible could not have happened in less than six days after he wrote his letter at Elizabeth-Town.
I would remark, that the captain's effrontery and expectations of seeing me, are equally absurd—Why did he not make this demand at a time when I could with propriety have gratified him, and must have made a point of doing it, before he had forfeited his rank as an officer, and his character as a gentleman? The public must judge of his Quixotism, and the propriety of my not taking any farther notice of him. I am now at a theatre, and in the line of my duty, where opportunities of chivalry and atchievement, much more consistent with my honour, and conducive to the good of my country, frequently occur.
The captain's languid attempt to save appearances, equally exposes his simplicity and arrogance—he could not have thought me so far gone in knight-errantry, to travel all the way to Maryland in quest of an adventure, and to put myself on a level with a man, who had forfeited all pretensions to be taken such notice of, by any man of honour, nor is it all the vain efforts of his coadjutors, in obtaining brigade petitions, certificates, and collected opinions in his favour, can avail to restore his character, or reinstate him in the favour of his country—and I shall hereafter be passive to all the captain himself may say, upon a presumption his slanders can have no weight, force, or effect.
[Page 105]Having now traced him through all his windings and doublings, and left him in a labyrinth, I submit to the impartial public to decide on his conduct, and my reputation, which I trust has ever been unblemished, and it ever has, and I hope ever will be my first wish, to conduct myself in such a manner, as to merit their approbation, therefore I have no apprehension that their good opinion and confidence will be lessened by any secret machinations of the captain, or his associates; and as he may still be under the influence of his evil genius, I shall here leave him, wishing he may be enlightened with just sentiments of honour, and restored again to his proper senses, which he has affected to have lost.