Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1879-12-13
RENO's RACK EFT.
An Extraordinary Tlctiss Of Ctrc""sston-
tiaL Ertdence.
MAUI V,rk 2un

tiaI Ertdence.
- New York SUM- =" = :.
Major Reno makes an ingenious series of
Differences to the charges brought against
him in the Fort Meade court martial. He
had been with the post traders wife without
insulting her, during the day before the sup
per, so, why shonld he have insulted her at
the supper? Again, the exhilsration which
the other members of the company strange
" mistook for drunkness, was caused by 60
ing from cold porch to warm parlor. As
for the fight with Nicholson, that gentleman
had stated his purpose to chinook the stuffinR
out of him (Reno,) and he was compelled
to tap Nicholson with billiard cue in self
defense. Finally, az to tho fright caused to
Miss and Mrs. Sturgis, by seeing Reno's
nose hattened against the formers window,
he happened to be out late that night, walk
ing for exercise. and by accident saw Miss
Sturgis, in complete toilet, throu IN tho win
dow. It was such pretty picture that he
thought there could be no harm in looking
| at it.
Were this the first time that Major Reno
had bean put to the labor of ingenious e1-
PLANTATION, in regard to his conduct, before
court martial, he would probably have the
full benefit OF all reasonable and perhaps
some unreasonable doubts, both in the court
and among the public. But it is not the first
nor the second time.
In the inquiry into Keno's conduct at the
battle OF the Little Big Horn, he was forced
to series of explanations, not only with re-
gard to his conduct Of the military opera
tons, but ALEC with regard to MS use Of q
rrh;eLv flash IL &hot rosA ovan oanno IF
bis own witnesses suggested possible i'm
proyements on his conduct, but he got the
benefit of all doubts. ~
Major Reno, less than three years ago, he
was compelled to explain away thelcharge of
having made improper overtures to tho wife
of Capt. Bell, while that officer was at aloth-
or post, and of having afterward circulated
stories derogatory to her character. In this
case his explanations, though ingenious, were
not satisfactory, and he was sentenced to
dismissal from the servics. Mr.. Hayes
COMMITTED the sentence to two years. loss of
rank and pay; but in promalgating the order
to that effect, Mr.. G. w. McCrary said dis
tipctly that "Major Reno's conduct toward
the wife Of an absent officer, and in using
the whole force of his power as command
ing officer of the post to crafty his resent
ment against her, cannot be to strongly con-
demned.'' The Communication was expressly
put on the ground of past military services,
and not on Major Reno's explanations.
Now, it is within the range of human
possibility that in all these cases the true
interpretations of Major Reno's conduct
have been the ingenious ones which he him
self has suggested, and that all others were
wrong. But in that case, he is one of the
most extraordinary victims of circumstances
known to modern history. And it is ex-
tremely doubtful whether his brother officers
now trying him will consent that he should
any longer continue in career where he it
made the football of SO perverse fortune.
They will ALEC be likely, we should say, to
doubt whether it is good for the service to
have an officer in it who has been forced to
80 many series of explanations for conduct
subjecting him to court martial. In short,
they not improbably will conclude that Mr..
Hayes's exercise of olemency toward Major
Reno, in May, 1877, was misplaced, and that
it would have been better, both for the SER
vic eand for Major Reno, had the sentence
of the Fort Abercrombie court been allowed
to stand.