Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1879-12-12

GLOBE, FRIDAY NORM
RENO's REPLY.
TO the Charges Mado Agatnst Hts Mtlt-
tary and Personal Reputatto,,-A Spe-
ctosss Plea to ErcMse Int0aicatton.
At Fort Meade, on the Sth inst, Major Mar
Gus A. Reno submitted hi, defense to the court
martial a. follows:
May it please the court: submit q sum-
mary Of tho evidence adduced before you, tax
ing each in turn. ,.ss,
The evidence regarding the first specification
is that Of Lieuts. Nioholson, Petit, DR.. Bell
and Barker Smith. 1t must be apparent to the
court that the evidence of Nicholson ia such az
to Justify my action. he acknowledges that
he said to me he could lick me in two minutes,
IN any way, and repeated this two or three
times. Such was his language, but mere words
the manner of its being said. 1t was the
bravado manner, which was put on to attract
the attention of all, that provoked me beyond
the limits OF patience, and not to attempt to
Hvenge the insult would have been to acknowl-
edge myself poltroon to whom insult might
The code Of gentlemen established in the clubs
OF any city would have expelled me had 1 acted
otherwise. Lieut.. Petit testified: sNicholson
said to Maj. Reno, 4 will settle this thing any
way you want, I can whip you in two minutes
Lieut.: Nicholson was talking in loud tone,
and fearing they would recommence the dis
turbance threatened both with arrest and
after . struggle there was some talking, the
greatest part of which was by Lieut.. Nichol.
son. In answer to question, Judge Advocate
Petit said: 'Leut. Nicholson made the first
threat by saying that he could whip him
(Renol in such length of time" In the ex.
animation Petit said it was purely personal
affair, and did not disturb the garrison; that
his threat of arrest was more particularly d.
rected against Nicholson than myself. That is
the summary of the most reliable witnesses to
this specification. Joe Smith, bartender, tes
titled that Lieut.. Nicholson first insulted me
and that no (Nicholson) caught my blow on the
arm. This shows that Nicholson was ready to
defend himself. DR.. Bell states in reference to
this specification almost the same as Lieut.
Petit, that the injury to Nicholson was not se-
rious. He caught the blow on the arm, and
must have been expecting it. These witnesses
do not think the club-room public resort.
The evidence clearly states that didn't create
the disturbance, nor did violently assault
Nicholson, nor that I continued to persist in
the disturbance, but that struck him, under
great provocation, with billiard-cuo. Can
there be anything criminal in that? Would I,
as an officer and gentleman, have acted other
wise? =.
In regard to tho second specification all the
witnesses-Lieut. Scott, Drs. Brechiman and
Bell-all agree that it was frolic; that the
chair was thrown tossed when was sober:
that had my mental faculties all the evening.
Lieut.. Scott testides that such was the fact at
2 A. n, and relates the incident that called
him back to say that if he would stop would
n nm how
and Smith, who is always at the club room,
says nothing UNUSUAL occurred, and it did not
make such an impression that he could even
remember the month. DR.. Brechiman said
that slightly knocked the hand of Smith in
which was my own change, He regarded me
rs simply good-humoredly drunk. Ia there
anything here to attach disorderly to? Is to
slightly KNOCK the hand to do 30 in a wanton
and riotous manner? Is q man drunk who is
in full possession of his mental facuities2 Is
it not in the evidence of Lieut.. Scott that had
the chair been thrown in a riotous way the sash
would have been broken? Yet such was not
the case. This same witness says he has seen
much worse things at the club room. 1 think
the evidence will convince the court that the
room is not public billiard saloon in the sense
it ia used in the testimony.
As to the third specification, Lieut.. Nichol-
son says there was nothing improper in my
manner. Fanshawe says that after supper I
suit. in speech or manner, to him or his family.
All the witnesses agree that the bottle was not
full, and that five gentlemen drank out of it.
johnson said that, had I been called upon,
could readily have made use of all my faculties.
was in a sane condition, and declined any
help to descend from the porch. Dr. Bell says
my speech was little thick. Mrs. Fanshawe
was the only person out of the five who saw
anything disgusting, but her experience of
such things is limited, and any drunk would
be disgusting to her, as to all true women. But
in truth the condition I was in, whether dis
gusting or not, was not intoxioation, as swore
in my evidence. I did not drink as much
whisky a. would make me drunk. DR.. Erwin,
an expert, testified in answer to my question
that it might be that on person going from a
cold atmosphere to warm room the change of
temperature would produce considerable eff
feet on some people, and it is established by
evidence. did this. know this must have
been the cause of the drowsiness testified to by
witnesses. All testify that I did not offer any
insult or commit any improperly in what I
Maid or in my manner, &c..
In regard to the evidence as to the specifca-
ton to the additional charge, in the testimony
of Miss Sturgis, it was not the sight of me that
excited alarm, but an imaginary sequence that
had been conjured up, and had no existence in
fact-viz: That would shoot her because she
knew must have some hard feeling toward
her father. The testimony of Lieut.. Spillman
is that he twice saw her through the window;
tho second time he advanced step or two,
but, seeing Sturgis smoking, thought there
was no occasion to 60 in, and any alarm must
have subsided. The cause of my being before
the window is already before the court, and if
any alarm resulted to the occupants by my
looking in, did all . gentleman could do in
sending full and ample apology for an unin.
territorial otfense, and this apology, even in the
mind of the accuser, it would be ungenerous
not to accept a. IN atonement of the offense,
ii the writer was thought to be influenced by
improper motives. It has been demonstrated
to the court, beyond doubt, that the motive
that actuated me in sending the note was that
of gentleman and officer. -.#
desire to call the attention of the court to
the fact that in my application for my note
through the judge advocate it was denied me,
but afterward offered with IN attempt to deny
having refused it when the original draft of it
was produced. ALSO to the speech of my &C.
ouser in regard to the establishment Of my mo-
tive in writing the note. 1t has been my mis-
toriety throughout the country by means of
press open to my enemies, who know not why
they are so, but, like village ours, bark when
their fellows do, and q greater degree Of atten-
ton will be called to what do than other Of
fcers not 80 widely advertised. Such is the
evidence. feel assured that the court can not,
upon it, lind anything that will snbstantiate
the charges and specifications, conviction upon
which would be the sacrifice of commission
which is the reward of over twenty-five years
hard and faithful labor to my country.
In this connection I ask the attention of the
court to the remarks of O'Brien, standard au-
thority on courts.martial, upon tho articles of
war under which these charges are laid. The
eighty-third article enacts that any commits
stoned officer convicted before general court
martial Of conduct unbecoming an officer and
gentleman shall be dismissed from the service.
The wording of this article is very vague. The
most trivial deviations from rectitude may in