Note 3 — A LATE CASE OF COURT-MARTIAL.[1]

In justice to Captain Douglas, we must here state, that he clearly proved before the court-martial, that he withheld his statement for two days before the Court of Inquiry, still under the impression that it might be used to damage him in the proceedings before the civil court. That he was justified in doing so is shown by an order from the Horse Guards, 3d July 1809, expressly acknowledging the “right” of any party, before a court of inquiry, “of declining to answer any question, or to make any statement, which might, in his opinion, have proved prejudicial to him in the course of any ulterior inquiry into his conduct.” On the 28th November last also, we may remark that Sir Charles Napier, in an order to the Indian Army, says, in reference to a Court of Inquiry—“If any person happens to be accused of misconduct, he is called on for his statement of the matter in hand, like any other person: he may either appear or refuse to appear, as he pleases, unless ordered by superior authority; and either answer any questions put to him, or refuse to answer.”

If, in the face of these two orders, an officer is to be arraigned before a court-martial for conduct “unbecoming the character of an officer and a gentleman, in having omitted and neglected to make a statement before a Court of Inquiry” which he thought would injure himself, we must say they are a snare and a delusion for the unwary, and ought to be expunged forthwith from the Order-books of the army.