Austin Texas,
Sir:
I have the honor to ask of the Colonel commanding the Department, a special review of the proceedings of the Garrison Court Martial, convened at this post for the trial of First Sergeant Anthony Pickett Company H. 25 Infantry, and promulgated in General Order No. 33. HdQrs Fort McKavett , Aug. 22. 1870.
Although judgment had been legally passed upon the soldier, I feel satisfied from my knowledge of the facts of the case, of the trial, and of the rules of evidence, that the Court has erred in its finding. The proceedings show that Sergeant Pickett reported to his Commanding officer, that corporeal punishment had been implicated upon him, by Chaplain Schultz 24th Infantry, in charge of the Post school. The Sergeant acknowledges that he made such report. If this report were a palpable falsehood, the Sergeant should be punished for slanderous charges against his superior officer, but it was patent to every one before his arraignment for trial that some plausibility was attached to his story, from the fact that the Chaplain was positively known to have employed corporeal punishment in another case if not in this. The virtuous indignation manifested by Chaplain Schultz, did not demand in my opinion such summary proceedings against the Sergeant, unless the conspicuous culpability on the part of the Chaplain, was subjected to the same official scrutiny at the trial of the Sergeant, Chaplain Schultz
(page two)
was the only witness against him. As no person other than these two, were present in the school room at the time of the alleged maltreatment, the Sergeant could do no more in his defense than to enter a general denial of falsehood, and not rely upon discrediting the Chaplain’s testimony. It will be observed by reference to the evidence of Captain Cunningham 24th Infantry, that Chaplain Schultz positively denied to him that he had ever punished any soldier, whereas it is admitted in evidence by the Chaplain himself, that he had resorted to corporeal punishment. The record also shows that Lieutenant Markley and Custer 24th Infantry testified in effect that they believed Chaplain Schultz capable of testifying falsely under oath. In a case of such questionable veracity of the only material witness for the prosecution, the accused should have had the benefit of doubt.
I have taken a special interest in this case because of my firm, conscientious conviction that Sergeant Pickett is entirely innocent of the charge of which he has been convicted. I do not believe that the Court, which tried him was wholly constituted as to render impartial justice. I know the character of the Sergeant most intimately. For nearly four years, he has been under my immediate command, from a young recruit, until by his own efforts he has attained a reputation as a model soldier of the regiment proud, ambitious, and always subordinate. He feels the stigma of his trial keenly,
(last page)
I respectfully submit that a careful review of the proceedings will not support the findings of the Court.
Very Respectfully, Yr. obt. Servt.
Frank M. Coxe
Captain 25 U.S. Infantry.