Cantonment Greene Ville November 6th 1795—1
At a General Court Martial this day convened pursuant to a General Order of yesterday “for the trial of such prisoners as may be brought before them”—
Maj. Shaylor—President—
The following proceedings were had—Ensign Meriwether Lewis of the 4th-SubLegion in arrest appeared for trial, and challenged Capt. Marts, Lieutenants Bissell Sterett and Webster from setting as members on his trial—2
Ensign Rand, challenged on the part of this United States—Capt. McRea, Lieutenants Devin and Freemer, and Ensigns Richmond Scott—returned vice those challenged appeared Capt. McRea, Lieut. Devin, Lieut. Freemer, and Ensign Richmond challenged by Ensign Lewis.
[page 2]
A Letter received by the Judge Marshall and Advocate General from the Adjutant General of which the following is a copy
—Greene Ville 6th Nov. 1795
Sir
I recieved your note of this date acquainting me that Ensign M. Lewis had objected to four members of the General Court Martial appointed to try him, viz Capt. Marts, Lieut. Sterett, Lieut. Webster and Lieut. Bissell—The Commander in Chief was made acquainted with the circumstance and directed that four other members should be detailed to supply their places on the Court—The second objection made by Ensign Lewis to four of his judges viz to Capt. McRea Lieuts Devon and Freemer and Ensign Richmond, is not approved of the General nor can it be admitted unless Ensign Lewis gives reasons for his objections. The Court are to judge other reasons given and in case they are deemed sufficient, new members will be warned, otherwise not—
This you will be please to make known to the Court—
I am Sir your obedt serv
John Mills
Adjt Genl
Lt E Smith Ind. Mat. & Adv. Genl to the Legion—
[page 3]
which being read Ensign Lewis offered to them the following objections—
“I hope none of the gentlemen I have objected to have felt themselves hurt on the occasion—I also feel myself disagreeably situated to be obliged to make my objections known which respect the last members which I have objected to—But I trust they will excuse me knowing my reputation is at stake and the obligation is from the order of the Commander in Chief and not from myself”—
“I object to Capt. McRea because he has exhibited charges which savour of his personality and such as I now appear before the Court for, against Capt. William Lewis”—“
I object to Mr Diven for having exhibited charges which the Commander in Chief has thought similar to those just mentioned, as is made known by his order pursuant to a Court Martial held at Hobson's Choice”3—
“I object to Mr Freemer and Mr Richmond for not having understood their own sentiments or rather for infirmness in matters in business as made known by their having withdrawn their signatures after having firmly affixed them to a price signed by a number of Officers of the Legion”—
Which being submitted to the other
[page 4]
members it was determined as their opinion that the reasons assigned are sufficient to preclude those challenged from sitting on the trial of Ensign Lewis—
Members dismissed by the President til tomorrow morning—
November 7th 1795—
The members assembled pursuant to appointment.
A letter of the 6th instant from the Adjutant General to the Judge Martial and Advocate General was read stating that the objections of Ensign Lewis as reported yesterday had been handed to the Commander in Chief and that other members were ordered to be detailed to supply the place of those objected to—
Capt. Prior, Lieut. Jones, Lieut. Buttes and Cornett Ball returned members vice those challenged appeared—
The Court being now complete were sworn on the trial of Ensign Lewis on the following charges exhibited against him by Lieutenant Elliot—viz—
1st Charge—A direct, open and contemplative violation of the 1st and 2nd Articles of the 7th Section of the Rules and Articles of War—
Specification 1st—in presuming on or about the 24th September last to use provoking speeches and gestures to Lieutenant Elliot
[page 5]
in his own house—
Specification 2nd—In presuming on the same day to send Lieutenant Elliot to a Challenge to fight a duel—
2nd Charge—Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman to Lieut. Elliot on the 24th of September—
Specification—In abruptly and in an ungentlemanlike manner, when intoxicated, entering his, (Lieut Elliot's) house on the 24th September last and without provocation insulting him and disturbing the peace and harmony of company of officers of whom he had invited there—Which being stated to him he pleads that he is not guilty thereof—
Whereupon the Court proceeded to the examination of the following witnesses—
Lieutenant Sterett, on oath says On the 24th of September last, Doctor Carmichael, Lieut Diven and Judge Smith dined with Mr Elliot and myself—soon after dinner Mr Smith went out—soon after this Mr Lewis and another gentleman Mr Rand came in and Mr Lewis asked Mr Diven
[page 6]
Diven saying “Mr Diven I wish to speak to you”
—they stepped aside, opened a door which leads to a platform projecting towards the Park—they left the door on a jar perhaps about half open—Doctor Carmichael got up and pushed too the door with his foot—Mr Elliot replied,—that was perfectly right, as he or they (alluding to the Company) did not wish to hear their conversation—in a short space of time the conversation of the gentlemen on the platform became so loud that we heard the sound of their voices.—Mr Elliot rose saying “this is wrong” and opened the door and addressed himself to Mr Diven “Sir you are my guest you were invited here pray do take your seat gentleman (addressing himself to the others) I am sorry that you came to my house to settle your disputes”—Mr Lewis turned into the house and appeared to be very much hurt and answered Mr Elliot “that he did not come to his house to settle his disputes nor had he any dispute with Mr Diven that he wished to settle”—more conversation of this kind perhaps past on both sides, but it was all nearly equal to that—and Mr Elliot mentioned that he wished them to sit down and take a glass of brandy and water and say no more on the Subject—I rose to help the gentleman and found no water—and handed the pitcher
[page 7]
to one of the Boys to bring some water—previous to its being brought—the conversation or the subject of the gentlemen's coming in was removed and conversation similar to the first took place—Mr Elliot warmly said that his house should be sacred that he would not suffer any disputes to be settled in it while he was master of it or something to that effect—but that his favor would be open to any gentleman officer at any time in a respectable decent way—Mr Lewis and Mr Rand in consequence of the second conversation immediately went down stairs—In a few minutes Mr Lewis came up the stairs again—the company were seated round the table—Mr Lewis stepped up towards Mr Elliot and addressed himself to him, “Sir I am now perfectly cool I consider myself to have been insulted in your house and by you Sir—as an officer and a gentleman I wish for Satisfaction, in two hours I will see you”—Mr Elliot replied “Very well Sir”—Mr Lewis then descended the stairs again—soon after Doctor Carmichael and Mr Diven left the house—Mr Elliot requested me to stay untill the two hours would elaspe [elapse]—in about half an hour after that perhaps,—an officer came in—he asked Mr Elliot and they went down stairs and remained a few minutes and returned—Mr Elliot mentioned
[page 8]
to him that he need not be backward in speaking before me as I was privy to what had passed before—the gentleman then addressed me saying “this is an unfortunate dispute that has took place between Mr Lewis and Mr Elliot, as a friend of Mr Lewis I wish to know who Mr Elliot's friend is—I have asked him who he is and he won't tell me—he says he has no friend—if I knew his friend I think I could have the business accommodated—Mr Sterett you are his friend, as you and he are mess mates he has surely mentioned the business and his determination to you”—I declared to him that Mr Elliot had even hindered me from speaking a word to him on the subject nor he had spoken to me—Mr Elliot then said “No Sir, Mr Sterett knows nothing of the matter business I have no friend nor do I think that I need a friend in this case—I don't know you as a friend to Mr Lewis nor do I know Mr Lewis as a challenger untill he sends a challenge in writing”—the gentleman then said “He must have misunderstood” Mr Lewis for he had told him that he had challenged him (meaning Mr Elliot)—but I shall go to Mr Lewis you will please to wait half an hour—I shall return in half an hour—he did return in less than half an hour—Mr Elliot was sitting at the end of the table, and he handed him a piece of paper—
[page 9]
Mr Elliot opened it and apparently read it—then Mr Elliot asked him “Sir what does this mean”—the gentleman smiled and said “Mr Elliot you seem to be a strange man, you surely can see that he means to fight you”—“what (said Mr Elliot) does the gentleman mean to fight with, is it with a six pounder or with a five and a half inch horwitz,” smiling at the time—“No Sir (said the gentleman) he means to fight you with pistols powder and ball as is usual on such occasions, as the place and time & has been left to me I make choice of tomorrow morning at gun firing within a hundred yards of old Number 6—he expects your answer”—Mr Elliot rose and stepped towards a table where some books were lying and took up the Articles of War, and said “Sir this is the way I will fight him—I will arrest him for a breach of certain articles of War naming them”
Ques. Did you read the paper handed by the gentleman to Mr Elliott!—
Answer—Yes
A paper here produced by the Judge Advocate signed Meriwether Lewis of which the following is a Copy—
Sir:
Your treatment to me as an officer and a gentleman obliges me to call on you for satisfaction; the terms will be left to my
[page 10]
from Capt. Marschalk—
Yours
Meriwether Lewis
Ensign 4th SubLegion
Lieut Elliot
Question to Mr Sterrit—Is this the paper handed by the officer to Mr Elliot?
Answer—It looks like the paper—
Ques. Do you believe it to be the same—
Answer—I do—
Ques. Was Mr Lewis at the time of his coming into Mr Elliot's house as mentioned intoxicated?
Answer—My acquaintance with him will not enable me to say whether he was or was not.
Ques. How far was you from Mr Diven and Mr Lewis when you heard the sound of their voices?
Answer—Perhaps about fifteen feet and a door shut between them—
Ques. Was this paper out of your sight between Mr Elliot's receiving it and your reading it?
Answer—It was—
Ques. What was the reply of Mr Elliot to the gentleman who handed the paper to him when he said he was sorry there had been a difference between him and Mr Lewis
Answer—He said he did not consider it a
[page 11]
dispute as worthy of so much ado about it—he had a good deal of conversation in which he held out the idea that there had been no disputes between them—
Ques. Did Mr Elliot make use of any provoking language to Mr Lewis?
Answer—No I think not—
Ques. Did Mr Lewis use any provoking or menacing gestures towards Mr Elliott?
Answer—Not more than I have related
Ques. by Mr Lewis—Was I at the time of entering the house of Mr Elliot guilty of a breach of any forms of Decorum—
Answer—I believe he wrapped at the Door, befors and walked up stairs—I supposed they were asked to walk up—they did not take off their hats—otherwise they came in in the usual way—and Mr Lewis walked up and spoke to Mr Diven apparently in a hurry—
Ques. by the Court—Had these gentlemen ever been in the house before?
Answer—Mr Rand had frequently—and I believe once before—
Ques. by Mr Lewis—Did not Mr Elliot when I left the room the last time and mentioned the time of his giving me satisfaction with an assenting tone say “I will” or “I will Mr Lewis”?
Answer—He said “very well Sir”—bowing as I thought—
[page 12]
Ques. Did you know if the paper came from me or if the gentleman alluded to was authorized by me to wait on Mr Elliot with it?
Answer—No otherwise then by the gentleman's own words as before mentioned—
Ques. Did you hear me say anything to Mr Elliott about fighting or arms—
Answer—I did not—
Doctor Carmichael on oath says—I dined on the day alluded to in the charge with Mr Elliot—after dinner Mr Lewis and Mr Rand came into the room and called Mr. Diven from the table. They and Mr Diven went out of the room leaving the door half open behind them—some interesting conversation appeared likely to take place between them: and, to prevent my hearing it, I shut the door—for which Mr Elliot thanked me and observed that he never wished to hear any thing like disputes or controversies and was surprised if that was the business of the gentlemen that they should come to his quarters—he soon afterwards got up and went to the door and invited the gentlemen to walk in and requested Mr Diven to take his seat—he observed to the gentlemen that he should be happy to see any gentlemen in his house but that it was not the place for settling disputes or to that amount—that they could be settled else where—that he wished his guests and such
[page 13]
such gentlemen as came to his house to enjoy themselves. During this conversation Mr Elliot invited the gentlemen to take some brandy and water—Mr Lewis made some apologies—that he had no intention of quarrelling or disputing in his house—he appeared much agitated and withdrew—a few minutes after he returned to the room and addressed Mr Elliot “Sir I am now cool, I consider myself insulted in your house—I therefore call upon you for satisfaction as a gentleman—I will call upon you in two hours.” He made a slight bow and withdrew—Mr Elliot answer'd “very well”—
Question—was Mr Lewis intoxicated at this time—
Answer—I am not sufficiently acquainted with him to determine—he appeared agitated but I did not then know the cause—previous to his leaving the room the first time, he appeared to have some difficulty in expressing himself and shed tears—
Ques. Had Mr Elliot made use of any provoking language or gestures to Mr Lewis—
Answer. Not more than I have related—
Ques. Did Mr Lewis when he returned and spoke to Mr Elliot make use of any provoking gestures to him?—
Answer—There was nothing provoking in his
[page 14]
gestures, his manner appeared interesting—
Ques. In what manner did Mr Lewis first enter the room and call Mr Diven out—
Answer—They both came into the room—I had not heard them knock or Mr Elliot invite him in before they came up stairs—one or both of them immediately called upon Mr Diven from the table. I did not know that they were come in untill I saw Mr Elliot speak to them—Adjourned til tomorrow morning—
November 8th 1795—
Court met pursuant to adjournment—
Lieutenant Diven, on oath says—on the day we dined at Mr Elliot's, Mr Lewis and Mr Rand came there and took me out, told me that they had some business with me—we went out on the platform—the door was a little open and was put to by some person—we staid there about a minute—Mr Elliot opened the door asked me saying “Mr Diven you are my guest I will thank you to walk in and take your seat” at the same time asking Mr Lewis and Mr Rand and take some Brandy and water—and said if we had any disputes he hoped they would not be settled in his house or something to that amount—I told him there was no dispute between them and me—Mr Lewis seemed very much hurt though I did not see him
[page 15]
treated improperly—Mr Lewis and Mr Rand went down stairs and as they were going down Mr Rand said he would never trouble Mr Elliot's house again or to that amount—they were gone but a few minutes when Mr Lewis returned and addressed himself to Mr Elliot and said—“I am now cool Sir I conceive that I have been insulted in your house by you” and I believe said he was an officer and a gentleman and demanded gentlemanly satisfaction and said Mr Elliot would hear from him in two hours—Mr Elliot said “Very well Sir”—
Ques. Was Mr Lewis intoxicated at this time—
Answer. I cant say that he was—he might have been drinking a little—
Ques. In what manner did Mr Lewis and Mr Rand enter the room—
Answer. I cant tell—I thought it was one of the boys coming up—and when I looked round I saw the gentlemen coming in—I dont know that they knocked at the door—I heard Mr Elliot say as soon as they were up—“Walk forward gentlemen”—
Ques. Did you conceive any part of Mr Lewis conduct merited a rebuke from Mr Elliot in the first instance?
Answer—I did not see Mr Lewis treat him improperly in the first instance unless by coming in the room in the manner in which he did.
[page 16]
Ques. by Mr Lewis. Was the conversation between you and me very loud—
Answer—The latter part of it was pretty loud—
Ques. by the Court—Was his conversation above the normal tone of Mr Lewis's voice?
Answer—I dont know he talked so that they might hear him in the room—thought he was not in a passion
Capt. Marschalk sworn—The paper before mentioned again produced.
Ques. Did you ever see that paper before—
Answer—I believe I have—
Ques. Do you know who wrote it—
Answer. I think I can Mr Lewis write it—
Ques. Did you see it delivered to Mr Elliot—
Answer. I did—
Ques. Did you know if it was delivered as a challenge to fight a duel—This question overruled by the Court and the witness not permitted to answer it—
Ques. Do you know of Mr Lewis having challenged Mr Elliot to fight a duel—This question also overruled by the Court and the witness not permitted to answer it—
Ques. by Mr Lewis—Did you see me intoxicated on the day alluded to in the charge?
[page 17]
Answer. I did not think he was intoxicated with liquor—Lieutenant Elliot, called as a witness and excepted to by some of the Court as an interested witness—then objection overruled by the Court—
Lieut. Elliot—sworn—confirmed the testimony of Lieut. Sterett circumstantially—the paper again produced here—
Ques. Do you know this paper—
Ans. Yes—
Ques. Was it delivered to you as a challenge from the day mentioned to fight a duel
Answer—Yes
Ques. Was it for the express purpose of fighting or for any other kind of satisfaction—
Answer—I do know that it was delivered for the express purpose of fighting because the gentleman who delivered it told me so—and the weapons and materials were named—and the time and place—he said the terms were left to him—that it was delivered as a challenge—that he saw Mr Lewis write it—no other satisfaction than fighting was asked—
Ques. Do you know that no other satisfaction than fighting would have been received?
Answer—I dont know but suppose other satisfaction would have been received—such as if I had asked his pardon after he challenged
[page 18]
me when I had given him no provocation—I was asked for no other—
Ques. by Mr Lewis—Has the previous papers produced been out of your possession before it was produced to the Court?
Answer. No.
Ensign Rand, called by Mr Lewis, sworn says,—
On the 24th September, I believe, Mr Lewis and I went into Mr Elliots chamber—Mr Lewis wanted to speak to Mr Devin who was dining with Mr Elliot—Mr Devin was asked to go step to the door—he, Mr Lewis and I went to the door—while we were there Mr Elliot came to the door and asked Mr Devin if he was his guest that day at dinner—Devin said he was—Mr Elliot desired him to take a seat—Devin went in and set down at the table—Mr Elliot observed to Mr Lewis that his house was an improper place for him to settle his disputes—Mr Lewis observed that he had no disputes with Devin—that he only wished to ask him a question—which he did not wish to ask before the company—some words such between Mr Lewis and Mr Elliot which I don't recollect—Mr Lewis's feelings appeared to be very much hurt he shed tears, and we went down stairs shortly afterwards—we stopped at Mr Whipple's and Mr Lewis returned to the chamber by himself—
Ques. by Mr Lewis—Did you not go with me to the quarters of Mr Diven in order to see him previously to our going to Mr Elliot's—Answd Yes—
[page 19]
Ques. Did we not stay until we conceived the Company of Mr Elliot had dined and were at leisure
Answer'd Yes—
Ques. Did we not use the ceremony of knocking at the Door before we went in and wait till we were invited before we ascended the stairs?
Answer—I knocked at the door and was on the stairs when we were invited it—
Ques. Was not Mr. Elliot abrupt conduct to me such as to hurt my feelings, before I had spoke to him and did you conceive yourself also hurt—
Answer. I conceived Mr Elliot to be rather hasty in the beginning of the business—
Ques. Did not Mr. Elliot when he first spoke address himself to Mr. Diven and me with warmth—
Answer—Yes—I conceive it to be so—
Ques. by the Court—Did Mr Lewis make use of any provoking words or gestures—
Answer—I don't conceive that his language was positivly provoking—
Ques. by Mr Lewis—Did not Mr. Elliot, addressing himself particularly to me, observe that no gentleman would come to his house to settle his disputes, after being informed by me that it was no dispute I came to settle—
Answer—Mr Elliot observed that his house was not a proper place for any gentleman to settle his disputes
Ques. by the Court—Do you know of Mr Lewis having challenged Mr. Elliot to fight a duel that day?
Answer I do not—
[page 20]
Ques. Was Mr Lewis intoxicated that day—
Answer I did not conceive him to be in in the least—
Ques by Mr. Lewis—Were you not with me from the forenoon of that day until we entered the house of Mr. Elliot when the conversation happened—
Answer. I was with him from 10’ O’ Clock I believe until the conversation happened
Defence to be heard on the 11th instant
Court adjourned till tomorrow—
[page 21]
Court adjourned till tomorrow—
November 11th 1795—Court met pursuant to adjournment
and resumed the trial of Ensign Lewis—
Ensign Scott, on oath says—I have known Mr Lewis since Christmas last and have been on a most intimate footing with him ever since—I never saw him the least intoxicated but conceive that he has always conducted himself with the utmost propriety—
Ensign Lewis then read to the following Defence
Court a Defence of which the following is a Copy—
Mr President and Gentlemen of the Court
I can but blush at the occasion which has obliged me to appear before you this day, an location as singular as ridiculous, as trivial as personal and as designed as it is ridiculous; Also an occasion which has turned the design and intention of the noble institution of Courts Martial, into a Tribunal only calculated to settle the private controversies of Officers. Were I capable of being the author of this original Scham, I should not have the effrontery to offer a word in vindication of myself, but patiently await your condemnation and the sensure of the world, with which I should be deservedly marked. But the character in which I appear is a sufficient demonstration of its not being a voluntary act of my own and therefore relieves me of having conscientiously deserved the one or other—
[page 22]
That this business is entirely personal is evidently shown by the charges and specifications themselves—I beg leave for the last time to repeat the charges and specifications which the gentleman for the last time good of the service has thought proper to exhibit against me—
1st Charge—For a direct, open and contentious vilation of the 1st & 3nd Article of the seventh Section of the Rules and Articles of War—
1st Specification—in presuming on the 24th of September last to use provoking speeches to me In my own house—
2nd Specification—In presuming on the same day to send me a Challenge to fight a duel—
2nd Charge—unofficer and ungentlemanly Conduct to me this day—
1st Specification—In abruptly and in an ungentlemanly manner, when intoxicated. Entering my house on the 24th of September last, and without provocation insulting me, and disturbing the peace and harmony of a Company of Officers whom I had invited there—
The rigor with which the Rules and Articles Of War treat all persons concerned in challenging either as principles or seconds makes it a business of the utmost consequence to all accused therewith, and had this charge been substantiated I know too well the sacred bonds by which the members of this tribunal are bound to recco[mend]
the awful sentence already passed and enjoined upon them by a superior power, (against which
[page 23]
there is no recrce [recourse] not to be well assured of the inevitable consequence—But I trust the contrary will be the result of the present inquiry. That in an army there will be private disputes and controversies is as evident, as the consequence of fire is smoke. That the most speedy method of settling them is best is as evident as that Military Law is the most valuable in proportion to its energy and force—That custom has ever derided and condemned the practice of settling private controversies in a public manner, as is evident as that custom has pointed out a method better calculated for the practice of military men. Perhaps it may not be amiss before I proceed further to recite a fin sintencer which it has pleased the Commander in Chief to deliver at several different times for the better regulation of the conduct of Officers who may be unfortunately engaged in any private controversies. They are first his observations pursuant to a Court Martial held at Legionville the 22nd of January 1792. When he mentions that such charges as these which had been exhibited by the Complanent against the Defendant when not supported, savored reather of private resentment than an inclination to promote military disciplin.
We also find his detestation more strongly Marked on this subject in his observations hersuant to a Court Martial held at Hobson's Choice the 9th of May 1793 which had been
[page 24]
produced at the instance of the same two gentlemen first refured to, who now appear in reverced order.—He here observes that the charges exhibited by the Complanent against the Defendant appear to be the counterpart of those exhibited by the at present Defendant against the Complanant at a former Court Martial, neither having for its basis the honor or dignity of the Legion, or the benefit of service, but evidently founded on Mallice and personal resentment and had better settled by some other method than that of a Court Martial. The Commander in Chief further observes that he hopes in future the times of the Officers will not be taken up, or their feelings tortured by hearing and recording charges and proceedings, which only tend to disgrace the orderly books of the Legion.4 Can any doubt, but what the Commander in Chief, was induced to make those observations from the most noble motives truly worthy of himself viz the good of the service.—The reputations of the Officers of his Corps. An anxiety that they should distinguish themselves as gentlemen, men of honor, men who are ever as willing to unsheath the sword in redress of private injuries, as public rongs. Also that the records of this noble Tribunal, a Tribunal which ought to be held sacred
[page 25]
to honor and justice among military men, should not be disgraced with charges fostered by malice and dictated by spleen—
But I must here beg leaf to recall your attention for a moment from the past to view the matter which more intimately concerns me, the one now before you. This shall be discussed with as much brevity and precision as I am capable of—I am happy that the business has been so thoroughly investigated—
I rely with patient resignation on the superior judgment of the Court, with whom it rests to determan how far the testimony or the note adduced as testimony amounts to a violation of the Article refered to in the first charge—I have been accused of having directly and pointedly challenged Mr. Elliot, I deny it from this presumption, that a challenge should both mention fighting and the implements of War with which to fight, before it can amount to a direct challenge, such as the Rules and Articles of War take cognizance of—We find nothing decisive or printed as having come from me contained in the testimony either of fighting or arms, which I conceive as the only principe constituant parts of deweling [dueling]. Mr. Elliot has informed you in his testimony that he received that note as a challenge to fite a diewel [duel], provided that note had come from me,
in his construction of that note, or an explination
[page 26]
of it by another to be a proof of my intentions? by no means I conceive—
If the gentleman from his frantic immagination has construed the vague word Sattisfaction into a loaded pistol intended for his execution; without having any other resources, am I to be accountable, or punished for his frenzy? I trust not or perhaps my stripes might be many. Is any presumtive proof, or the mear opinion of any person as to the intention of the note to justify so harsh a sentence as that of dismissing me from the service of my country—Has it not appeared from the testimony of the several gentlemen, that I first waited on Mr Diven at this own Quarters found him not at home, was informed he was a guest of Mr. Elliot's—That I proposed by waited some time in order not to disturb him, or any other guest of Mr. Elliot's, it being about the time of dining. That I entered the house of Mr Elliot in the form generally observed in Camp. That Mr Diven did at my request, retire for a few minutes from the company. That my business with Mr. Diven was entirely friendly. That Mr Elliot interrupted us when in private conversation, that he spoke with warmth, when he first addressed me—previous to my speaking to him—
And that Mr. Rand the Gentleman who was with me, although not in particular addressed as myself, felt himself as much hirt at Mr. Elliot's expressions and manner, as to reply to him—
[page 27]
as he left the room, that he would not ever again ever trouble his quarters—
As far as a contracted bow, a stern countenance, or a menacing tone, can express, a cool, deliberate, and dispationate, manner of speaking so far Mr Elliot acted consistent with what he has endevoured to prove—
It appears evident that a demand has been made of restitution for injuries done, and that this demand was suited to the nature of the injury done, an injury done my feelings my reputation and my honour—Now I should be much obliged to any Gentleman to shew me any law, either Civil or Millitary, Divine or Human, that does debar a man from a demand of his rights, no it would be a vain attempt to unmar every principle of equity
and justice, on which is evidently founded the intention, the support, and the spirit of all Law—
So far from being debared this priviledg, Law directs that a demand shall be made, Justice that restitution shall be given; Can it then be either unlawfull or unjust to make such demand? I answer not—Is, or ought not justice to be the intention of Law? is, or ought not Law to be handmaid of Justice? moste certainly; for by Law as the instrument are the mandates of Justice inforced—
That it is both lawfull and just to demand
[page 28]
restitution for an injury done, and that, that demand should be the anticident of the injury, cannot be demur?—That is if my property is injured, protection requires of the aggressor a like sacrifice to reinmburse me; if this is not obtained, so far law must be deficient—If any outrage be commited on my person, justice requires a restitution similar to the injury, if this is not done, the deficiency must be in Law—If my feelings, or more my reputation and honour, are wontonly spoorted with to flatter the vanity, or swell the ambition of my self important aggressor. Justice cry is allowed for restitution, and Law is evidently deficient, that does not amply satisfy her demands—
It is an undoubted truth, and yet a misfortune ever to be lamented, that law is not fully addiquate to this task, notwithstanding the numerous coads [codes] which our virtuous legislature have laboured to compile—Were law to arrive at this perfection, that is, were law justice and justice law, those Hippocrits, would be more cautious, how they under the suspicions of defending the law, trample with impunity on every principle of justice—The deficiency of Law that barters reputation for goald [gold] or that so far deviates from the dictates of justice as protection to virtue, must be sincerely lamented by every sensible feeling mind—He who acts agreeable to the dictates of Justice, acts against
[page 29]
to what is or ought to be law, and is therefore justified by every principle of both—I have in every instance paid the greatest deference to Law of my country neither have I lost site of equity and justice—My conduct to this Gentleman has not been improper in any one instance, but justified me in treating him as such, The similarity of conduct not only of himself, but every officer in the Legion situated as I was justified it—The exemplary conduct of the officers of all armies that have heretofore served the United States, further countenances me. Custom Justifies me And Custom when founded on Justice, and sided by time, in a measure, rises superior to Law, and justified a breach in the eye of the world whos good opinion is the magnet of all our actions—
I was Justified from a still more pleasing principle, a conscientious nolege of having discharged my duty to my country, to the gentleman, and to myself—I ask you Mr President and Gentlemen of the Court wherein I have erred—Is it a crime to comply with the simplest dictates of equity and justice?—Is it a crime to comply with the law? Is it a crime to protect your person or reputation against an assailent? Or is it a crime to settle personal
[page 30]
disputes in a private manner? If you answer in the affirmative, sentence me accordingly for they are crimes if necessary I will daily and hourly commit. If you answer in the negative, I must further ask why I have been like a criminal dragged before the bar of justice to answer crimes which you determan virtues. If this be the case you will answer the fault mus not be in Law but from who procicutes [prosecutes], and loudly calls in question his judgment—Can virtue and vice be here in strongly contrasted, in their simple truths, that any gentleman should mistake the one for the other? no matter of surprise then that he who can be such strainge improprieties, should act widly different from all others of his profession—as to equity and justice. I presume the gentleman did not dwell long on their good properties as the more he did so the more he found them discountenance Injuries wantonly commited—as to law perhaps he might have dwelt with more pleasure on it than the former as its dificiencies better suited the hue of his heart as to that first principle of mature self defence, he must have seen a strainge inconsistency in it, one never never discovered before by any but men of his passive turn of mind, to justify his conduct, for when he was injured, as he assures you he was, he did not defend himself, neither did he put
[page 31]
my plain honesty to the test as far as even demand sattisfaction—But this inconsistency dose not account for the contradiction you find that he was not first injured, but that felt myself hirt at his abrupt and warm address in the first instant; therefore his supposed injury was no other than a retalliation for an outrage he had himself previously commited—
Were that Gentleman no fonder of altercation than myself he would not contend as much before a Publick Trybunal of Justice for sattisfaction, which he mite easily have obtained of me privality in a few minutes—What mus be the reflection of our Countrymen when they find the men whom they singled out from among thousands, as men of firmness and resolution, and those best calculated to defend their country fight its battles and aveng its rongs? when they find these very men, so far sacreficed their good oppinion, as to protect individuals? Will they not do you suppose, with poignant regret acknoledg their error, and with every true hearted soldier acknoledg them a disgrace to the profession of arms,
[page 32]
a profession honorable to themselves and ucefull to their country—
As to the business of settling personal disputes in a private manner I conceive it is intimately connected with the former (viz—Self Defence) for he who is willing to settle his own private disputes, need not call upon the Publick for her protection in the one cace, or pester trybunals in the other—He who acts differently sets up in opposition to the oppinions of all that vallue their reputations as millitary men, as well as the customs of all armies that have exhisted to the remotest ages, and will no doubt, for his unexampled vanity be rewarded with their contempt—
Any gentleman who will act from such principles must not have set an high estimate on his reputation, or otherwise cannot reflect an instant on the impropriety of such conduct, to act incongruous to every principle of honor and justice—
Any gentleman who can undervalue his own reputation so far, is reather, more excusable in undervaluing the reputation of another, it being the most equitable criterian to judg others by ourselves—
That my Posicutor sets a low estimate on my reputation is obvious an expression, which (from the goodness of his heart) he has made several times since my trial arrest, viz. that he had arrested me mearly for an experiment;
[page 33]
A noble sentiment indeed, one truly worthy of his great and magnanimous soul, that can at ease wantonly sport with the reputation of another for mear information—Or that can to add to his diar [dire] idol experience unfeelingly sacrifice the reputation of one he has already doubly injured; Doubly injured I say fore for in addition to the grosest insult he has laboured under with all invention of a malignant heart to add the greatest of misfortunes, to deprive me of my reputation—I had much reather he had of indulged his favorite, experience with an attempt on my life an object better calculated to serve the experience of a millitary man—But those unfounded arguments, or vague equivocations, cannot delude the vigilant mind which must discover that they were not the motives by which the gentleman was actuated; Or the passions under whos influence he is unfortunately laboured.—
I can not finally conclude this subject without some further comment on the word sattisfaction—I mus remind you that gentlemanny sattisfaction what was what I demanded, it is certainly not a gentleman but an assassin who can not be satisfied with any thing less than the life of his adversary, altho he may have been injured in a variety
[page 34]
of instances—I have endeavoured to prove that a demand of sattisfaction was both lawful and just, I must further urge that it is also necessary to wach your reputation with all the eyes of Argus—[hundred eyes of Argus]
Will you not believe no better than he is said to be, when he suffers another to tell him to his face, either by a direct or an indirect expression that he is no gentleman, and dos not resent it or call the person who may be so impurtinent to account for such impurtinence. You will answer that it is the general received oppinion.—now as it is very disagreeable to hobble through life with a broken reputation, I conceive the duty of every man to connect intimally, their life and reputation by all possible ties, to the end. that when the one makes its exit the other may also.—Had I received a billet which demanded gentlemanny sattisfaction, (as Mr Elliot has informed you he conceived he did from me) I should of thought it a compliment, as none but a gentleman is expected to give gentlemanny sattisfaction—
If he had punished the man who has paid him who has paid him a compliment how much more ought to be punished who can insult another in his own house—That the word sattisfaction is vague, and may be given in a variety of forms each sufficient to do justice to the feelings of a gentleman, cannot be denyed—
[page 35]
I observed in the first instance that this business was designed and mallicous, in justification of which, I will observe to the Court, that immediately I was in confinment, proposals were made to the gentleman of leaving it to refferees, who should determan upon honor, who had been the aggressor, and how far, and also the method and manner of the accomidation. this might this mite have done justice to the feelings of both without the trouble of a Court Martial. But in order to put his favourit scheme in execution practice, or from a contintiencious knowledge of the ballance being much in my favour, he proved refractory as he has done in every other instance—The specification of my being intoxicated proves it malicious, for it has been proven by several that I was not in the least intoxicated either before or after visiting the house of Mr. Elliot.—It has also proven by a gentleman who has been intimate with me for many months that he never saw me intoxicated during his acquaintaince with me—
As to the second charge of unofficer and ungentlemany conduct—I defy not only my Prosicutor but the world to alledg any thing derogatory to the character of a gentleman
I wish the gentleman may see his faults, and that he never may on his imagination through this life meet with
[page 36]
an adversary so mallicious refractory or obserd [absurd] as he had proven to me—I also trust that my sword will not only be returned, but that it will be done in a manner which will do justice to the cause in which I have contended—
I am with due submission your most obedient
Servent
Meriwether Lewis
Ensign 4th S. Legion
Which being read and heard, the Court in consideration on the testimony adduced are of opinion that Ensign Lewis is not guilty of the Charges exhibited against him, and sentence that he be acquitted with honor—5