Document, "Memorial" [case for reinstatement], Ferdinand William Risque (1803-1862), concerning reinstatement of rank to George Christian Hutter (1793-1879)

Document, "Memorial" [case for reinstatement], Ferdinand William Risque (1803-1862), concerning reinstatement of rank to George Christian Hutter (1793-1879)

Eight page printed document written in the late 1840s by Ferdinand W. Risque making the case for reinstatement of rank to George Christian Hutter.

Printed document outlines in legal fashion character references and arguments for reinstatement of Hutter's rank. Due to misunderstandings about a leave of absence, which let to charges of disobienace of orders, Hutter was court martialled and removed from the US Army.

Hutter's initial removal from the US Army let to financial strains such that he listed Sandusky for sale in the local newspaper. After review by Congress and the President, Hutter was returned to army service but not at his former rank. His rank was eventually restored however.

Document was likely one of many printed versions given out to Congressmen and influential citizens as part of a lobbying effort.

Ferdinand Risque was George's brother-in-law, Harriet Risque Hutter was George's wife.

Ferdinand William Risque Sr.
Born 1803
Died 28 Mar 1862 
Buried: Oak Hill Cemetery, Washington, District of Columbia, District of Columbia, USA
Plot: North Hill, Lot 66.

Risque, Ferdinand William

1846-1848

Permission to publish or reproduce required
inquire at info@historicsandusky.org

Document, 8 pages, each page 5 3/4" x 8 3/4"

en-US

Memorial.
To the Honorable the Chairman

     Sir: I beg leave to submit for your consideration, and that of your committee, a memorial addressed to the President of the United States, praying for the restoration of Captain George C. Hutter to his original rank in the United States Army. Captain Hutter has been restored by James Polk, President of the United States, and is now with the army of General Scott in Mexico, having marched from Vera Cruz with the command of Major Lally. (See Report of Major Lally.) The original memorial and accompanying papers are on file in the office of the Adjutant General of the United States Army.                                 _______ 

To James Polk, President of the United States:
     The memorial of F.W. Risque, the friend and brother-in-law of George C. Hutter respectfully represents: That the said Hutter, a native of the State of Pennsylvania, and now a resident of the State of Virginia, entered the United States Army, from civil life in the month of January, 1820, as a second lieutenant of artillery; and, on the 30th of September, 1823, during the administration of Mr. Monroe, he was promoted to first lieutenant. He was afterwards transferred to the sixth regiment of infantry, and promoted to a captaincy in that regiment on the 12th day of May, 1829. His regiment , which has seen much active and hard service, has been stationed principally in the west and southwest: for several years at the Council Bluffs; at Jefferson Barracks; then on the Sabine River; and finally in Florida, during the Seminole war. He arrived with his company at Tampa Bay on the 5th of January, 1837, left on the 17th of May, on leave of absence, in the consequence of ill health, and on the 17th of August following was detailed on the recruiting service, and directed to open a recruiting rendezvous at Lynchburg, Virginia.
     From that service he rejoined his regiment in Florida on the 15th of April, 1838, and remained with it two years up to April, 1840, when he was directed to report for general recruiting orders, and was again assigned to the Lynchburg station.
     From the assurance of Major General Macomb, and the usual custom in the cases, believing that he would be retained on that service at Lynchburg for two years, he purchased furniture, rented a house, and commenced house-keeping. But in this expectation he was disappointed; for, by an order from Colonel J. H Vose, superintendent of the recruiting service, dated the 18th of December, 1840, based upon the instructions from the Adjacent General, he was ordered to close his recruiting rendezvous at Lynchburg on the last day of that month. And to “repair with his permanent party and recruits by sea to Bedloe’s Island, New York.” Colonel Vose, in that order adds, “I have further to inform you that, as soon as this duty is performed, I am instructed by the Adjutant General to give you an order to join your regiment in Florida.”- See order A, and letter B, Hutter’s answer.The last order was followed by another from Colonel Vose in the following words:

“Sir: I have to inform you that the detachment of 100 recruits for the 1st infantry in Florida will leave here on or about the 15th of January, and that you are to accompany the detachment. You will therefore please be here by the earliest possible day. Signed,  
See order C, and answer D.

     Desirous for obeying the last order, but believing that it would be impossible to do so if he accompanied his recruits from Richmond by sea, he put them on board a vessel bond for New York on the 7th of January, 1841, under the care of his sergeant, and took the most direct and expeditious route by the way of Washington. While in Washington he obtained leave of absence for four months, from the Adjutant General, by the following order:
Special Orders,
No. 2. 

     "2. Leave of absence for four months is granted to Captain G.C Hutter, sixth infantry; at its expiration, he will join his company.
     By order of Major General Macomb.
          Signed,            “R. JONES, Adjutant General.”

See order G, and letter of Adjutant General Jones, F.

     The Adjutant General gave his leave of absence with a full knowledge of all the previous orders, which were in fact based upon his own instructions; and after giving it, he informed Captain Hutter, who manifested some anxiety to go to New York and report to Colonel Vose in person, that it was unnecessary to do so; and that, as he was about to to write Colonel Vose, he would inform what had been done.
     General Jones, in his evidence before the court martial at New York, then engaged in the trial of Captain Hutter, says: “Learning from him (Captain Hutter) the object he had in view in obtaining this leave of absence, I told him I did not think it necessary that he should now proceed to New York. This I mentioned of my own accord, with a view to afford him all the time granted him by the leave which was practicable.”-See record 19 and 20.
     The order of the 11th of January, 1841, granting the leave of absence, having superseded the order requiring him to accompany 100 recruits to Florida, and the voluntary declaration of the Adjutant General at the time “that he need not now proceed to New York,” absolved Captain Hutter from the necessity of going to New York to take charge of said recruits, and fully authorized him to avail himself of the leave of absence. He accordingly joined his family in Lynchburg, Virginia, preparatory to going to St. Louis Missouri, on business of impotence, which could not be neglected without the most ruinous consequences, and for the transaction of which the leave of absence was obtained.
     While in Lynchburg, he received an order, dated 24th of February, 1841, placing him under arrest, and directing him to repair to Governor’s Island, to answer charges preferred against him by Lieut. Colonel J. H. Vose. He obeyed that order, and repaired immediately to New York . By Order No. 17, from the office of the Adjutant General, dated Washington, March 23rd, 1841, for his trial, upon charges and specifications preferred against him by the said Lieutenant Colonel J. H. Vose.
     There were three charges, viz: 1st. Disobedience of orders. 2d. Negligent of duty. 3d. Unofficerlike conduct. The court found him guilty of the second charge, and also guilty of the second specification of the second charge, except the words “contrary to orders,” and not guilty of the other charges and specifications.
     The specification of which he was found guilty is as follows:
     “Specification 2d. In this, that he, the said Captain George C. Hutter, of the sixth regiment of infantry, after sending off the detachment from Richmond, Virginia,which took place on or about the 6th of January, 1841, and remaining behind himself, did not give any information to Lieutenant Colonel J. H. Vose, superintendent of the recruiting service , relative to the name of the vessel in which the recruits were embarked, or the time she was to sail; nor has the said Captain George C. Hutter, of the sixth regiment of infantry, ever communicated with Lieutenant Colonel J. H. Vose, 3d infantry, superintendent of the recruiting service, by letter or otherwise, since the 2nd day of January, 1841, when he informed the said superintendent that the detachment had left Lynchburg.”
     Besides the said finding, the court sentenced him to be reprimanded by the General-in-chief in general orders.
     Major General Macomb approved the findings and sentenced of the court, and proceed to reprimand Captain Hutter as follows, viz:
     “The General feels in his duty to admonish Captain Hutter for the total disregard he has exhibited for the welfare and comfort of the detachment of recruits which he was to conduct to New York. Instead of going to the transport to see that everything was provided for his men, recruits enlisted by themselves, and for whose welfare he ought to have evicted more concern, he abandons them to the care of a sergeant, without instructions, to get to New York as well as they can, and sets out in a comfortable conveyance by the land route. The General regrets to see so little interest taken on the part of any officer for the soldiers committed to his care. Captain Hutter is released from arrest, and will proceed without delay to join his company.”
     It will be seen, from the record of the preceding of the court, that the only thing of which Captain Hutter was found guilty was the omission or neglect of not writing to Lieutenant Colonel J.H. Vose, and of informing him “of the name of the vessel in which the recruits were embarked, and the time she was to sail.”
     This omission, as set forth in the second specification of the second charge, is that the neglect of duty- the only neglect of duty- and the only offence of which Captain Hutter was found guilty by the court. That was certainly not a wilful or malicious act. It proceeded from no rebellious spirit or contempt of the order of his superior officer; but was a an innocent and unintentional omission, caused by misapprehension, and a belief on his part that the Adjutant General would have given him Lieutenant Colonel Vose satisfactory reasons why he did not proceed to New York, and why he did not write.
     By an examination of the evidence, it will be seen that the finding of the court is not justified by the facts as proved upon the trial of Capt. Hutter, and that as to the reprimand of Major General Macomb, it is still more extraordinary, not being conformable to the finding of the court, and therefore does great injustice to Captain Hutter.
     On the 28t of April, 1841, Captain Hutter address a letter to the Secretary of War, in which he stated that, on the 11th of January, 1841, he had obtained leave of absence for four months; that, pending his trial in New York, he had repeated conversations with the judge advocate, and with the other officers if the army as to the effects of the same, who gave it as their opinion, that the time taken from his furlough by his attendance on the court would be made up, and that he would be permitted to attend to his private business in Missouri, then in New York with whom he had important business transactions, to meet him in St. Louis early in the month of May. He also stated in that letter, that he had had leave of absence for six months only within the last sixteen years. He then appeals the Secretary of War for a short leave of absence, and stated that as necessary of being in St. Louis, under his engagement, would not permit him to remain long enough in Lynchburg to receive a reply to his letter, he requested to be addressed at St. Louis. He also stated that he had left his commission in the hands of Dr. James Saunders and Richard H. Toler, of Lynchburg, Virginia, with a request that they would tender the resignation of the same if the indulgence asked was refused. See copy of that letter.
     On his return to Lynchburg he received an order from the Adjutant General’s office, dated June 22d, 1841, by which the President of the United States directed that he should be dropped from the rolls of the army, for having disobeyed the order to join his regiment, accompanying the reprimand of Major General Macomb. See Order No. 34.
     Immediately after receiving the last order, Captain Hutter repaired to Washington, and made a full expose of all the facts of his case to President Tyler, who, after after mature consideration, on the 6th of August, 1841, rescinded the order made on him on the 22nd of June, 1841, and directed Captain Hutter to resume his sword, and to proceed forthwith to join his regiment in Florida.See Order No. 44.
     In obedience to that order Captain Hutter repaired to Florida, and joined his regiment. Between the order of the 22nd of June, dropping Captain Hutter from the rolls of the army , and the order of the 6th of August, 1841, rescinding the former order and restoring him to the army, there were no promotions in the sixth regiment of infantry.     
     The word “dropped,” used by the President in Order No. 34, in relation to Capt. Hutter, it seems to your memorialist, ought not to e so construed as to deprive him of his commission, though he was thereby deprived of his command and military character for the time being; the President having no power,under the articles of war, to deprive an officer of his commission, without the previous finding of a court martial to that effect.
     If, then, the order of the President, dropping Capt. Hutter from the rolls of the army, did not deprive him of his commission- and your memorialist believes that it did not-it follows, that the President had the undoubted right to rescind that order, without the concurrence of the Senate.
     The name of Captain Hutter having been sent to the Senate by the President for confirmation, his nomination was rejected by that body on the 10th of February, 1842, “being at the moment of rejection by the Senate, and for months immediate before, up to his waist in mud and water of the Florida everglades, gallantly in pursuit of the enemy.” The resolution of the Senate, rejecting the nomination of Capt. Hutter, was received by him in Florida On the 27th of March, 1841.
     As to the military services of Capt. Hutter, your memorialist begs leave to refer to the following testimonials. Col. William Davenport, of the 1st infantry, in his letter to you memorialist of the 19th February last, says: “ While Capt. Hutter served under my instructions in Florida. I found him untiring in the discharge of his military duties. In this respect he had few equals,and I think I may truly say, no superiors. His services were of the most arduous kind;and had he remained in the army, I think, judging by the liberality to others, they would have been favorably noticed by the Government.”
     In a communication from the Adjutant General’s office , dated the 9th instant, to Major General Scott, the following language is used: “I take great pleasure in stating that he (Capt. Hutter) always had the reputation of having an excellent company, and that while serving in the field with his regiment his energy and activity were conspicuous.”
     In the leave of absence granted by major General Jesup at Tampa Bay, 15th of May, 1840, he says: “The Commanding General regrets the loss of the services of so valuable an office as Captain Hutter; and hopes that his health will soon enable him to return to duty.”
     In a note from Major General Scott to the Hon. Wm. S. Archer, of the 5th of February last, he says: “I felt and said at the time, there was great hardship in his (Capt. Hutter’s) case, he being at the moment of rejection by the Senate, and for months immediately before, up to his waist in the mud and water of the Florida everglades, gallantly in pursuit of the enemy.”
     In the letter of the Hon. Jas. D. Wescott, jr., of the U.S Senate, of the 9t inst., concurred in by the Hon. D. L. Yulee, the Hon. Seabourn Jones, and the Hon. Wm. H.Brockenbrough, he speaks in high terms of Capt. Hutter’s gallantry and efficiency as an officer while in the Seminole war. The following are extracts from that letter: “I feel fully authorized, and am satisfied that duty demands of me to say, in behalf of the people of West and Middle Florida, that Capt. Hutter’s conduct, while serving with his regiment in those districts in the Seminole war, (yet not ended,) satisfied them fully there was no better officer than him in the U.S. army. He was indefatigable, brave, and ever vigilant: he was without pretence,and unaffected and conciliatory in his demeanor; respected the citizens, and won their undivided respect and esteem.”  *  *  *  *  “It is the general opinion of the people of Florida in whose vicinity he served, that he was the best scouting officer of the regular army there.”
     In the letter of Gen. Thomas S. Jesup to the Hon. E. W. Hubbard, of the 29th of May, 1846, he says:

     DEAR SIR: In reply to your inquiries in regards to Capt. Hutter, it is byt justice to say, that so far as his conduct came under my observation it was entirely correct. He was an excellent soldier in Florida, and I once entrusted him with an important separate command, which he conducted most creditably to himself and advantageously to the country. His health was feeble, but notwithstanding he was always ready for the most arduous duty. All that I know of him personally is favorable, and I sincerely hope that justice may be done to him by the Executive, in restoring him to the service from which he was in so unwarrantable a manner removed.
          “I am, sir, most respectfully, your obedient servant, “The Hon. E. W. Hubbard, H. of R.
Extract from evidence of Gen. Jones, Adj. General U.S Army- see record of court martial, pages 19,20,21,and 22:
     “Capt. Hutter having obtained leave of absence, on his appearing in Washington, (Jan. 11, 1841,) and seeing tt he had not proceeded to New York by the route which I supposed he had taken, and learning from him the object he had in view in obtaining this leave of absence, I told him I did not think it necessary that he should now proceed to New York. This I mentioned of my own accord, with a view to afford him all the time granted him by the leave which was practicable. Capt. H. replied, that he rather preferred to proceed to New York, as he wished to see a father, or parent, living in Pennsylvania, who he had not for a long time seen. We had further conversation with regard to his wishes, but I do not remember anything particular beyond the above statement.
     “Question. Do you recollect whether you told him to write to New York to Col. Vose, and afterwards, on a little reflection, saying to him, he needed not to do so;that you would write yourself, as you were going to write yourself on another business?           
     “Answer. It is probable I may have said that, but I do not distinctly recollect.
     “Question. Do you recollect Capt. H. saying, previous to being told he needed not to go to New York, or at any time during the conversation, that he was to be in New York by the 15th; that he had time enough, and intended to be there?
     “Answer. I think he did make the remark, having reference to the departure of recruits destined for Florida, which it had been expected he would accompany.
     "Question. Would not you understand the order of the 25th of December, (see C,) now shown to you, as an order for Capt. Hutter in person to proceed by the most direct route to New York?     
     “Answer. I should so understand it. “Question. Taking the two orders of the of the 18th and 25th together, (see A & C,) would you not consider the one as modifying the other, so that Capt. Hutter would not be guilty of disobedience of orders in proceeding directly to New York by way of Washington?
     “Answer. Taking The two orders together of the 18th and 25th of December, I should think there would be some discretion left to the office, (Capt. H.,) as to the most direct route to be taken to New York via Washington. But if he should suppose there was time enough to take the route by sea with the recruits, as required in the instructions of the prior date, I should not regard those of the latter as cancelling or revoking the first.
     “Question. As it was expected the detachment would leave for Florida on the 15th, would it not be desirable for Capt. Hutter to be at New York before that day?
     “Answer. Yes; a day before at least.
     “Question, (by Judge Advocate.) On the arrival of Capt. Hutter at Washington, and previous to his receiving the leave of absence granted by the special order of the 11th of January, 1841, did he inform you, or was it known to you, that he was then under orders for the performance of a special service?     
     “Answer. I knew that he was under orders to join his regiment with the recruits, via the principal depot, New York; for on the first day of December I dispatched instructions to that effect to Lieut. Colonel Vose, superintendent of the recruiting service.”
     Believing that great injustice has been done to a meritorious officer, and that it is in the power of the President to repair the injury, your memorialist therefore prays that you will investigate the whole matter, and if not inconsistent with your principal of justice and equity, restore, Capt. Hutter to his former rank in the army. And you memorialist, as in duty bound will ever pray,