service. Six of the officers who were of the court recommended him to the clemency of the President. The President disapproved of the findings of the court as to the charge of mutiny, but expressed the opinion that the second and third charges were sustained by the proofs; but that, in consideration of the valuable services of Lieutenant Colonel Fremont, the penalty of dismissal from the service was remitted. When the findings of the court were announced, and the action of the President was made known to Fremont, he wrote a letter to the Adjutant-General resigning his commission as Lieutenant-Colonel of the Army, and giving as a reason that he could not, by accepting the clemency of the President, admit the justice of the sentence.
It is not easy, from a legal point of view, to justify the action of the President. If the conduct of Fremont in refusing to recognize the authority of General Kearny was an offence, it must have rested upon the fact that Kearny exhibited to him evidence which should have satisfied a reasonable person that he had authority from the President to take command of the military forces in California; and if such authority was exhibited to Fremont and he refused obedience, his refusal constituted the crime of mutiny. The other offences charged against Fremont would have followed as a matter of course; but in the absence of proof that he was guilty of mutiny, there was no evidence whatever on which the minor charges could be sustained. Thus ended Fremont’s military services and his career as an explorer when he was less than thirty-four years of age.
Fremont’s subsequent career may be considered under three heads. First, in business affairs, in which, apparently, he was unsuccessful. Next, he was the first candidate of the Republican Party for the office of President of the United States. His acceptance of the nomination, and his letters and statements touching the policy and purposes of the new
