Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1884-11-21
GEN. SWAIN OPENS FIRE.
BANKER BATEMAN AND THE
COURT BOMBARDED.

A Demand that Allegations Concerning
Purchases of Stock be Proven by the
Production of the Certificates The
Judge Advocate of the Court Rains
Hot Shot ON the Lawyers.
WASHINGTON, Nov. 2O.-Upon the OPEN
ing of the session of the Swain court
martial this morning the Judge Advocate
informed the court that he had been
served by the defense with document
addressed to A. E. Bateman in the nature
OF a notice to him to produce certain doc
uments.
He said that he could not be called upon to
act as medium of communication with Mr.
Bateman, being here solely as a Representa-
tive of the United States. Gen. GrosyenOr Of
the counsel for the defense, said that they de-
slred by this proceeding to get at books and
papers which lie back oi this proceedings. The
defense should ultimately demand the origi-
mai documents IN this case, when testimony
should be brought In touching certain imam
cial transactions between BaJeman g. Co. and
Gen. swain They would insist that where's
ever 1t Is alleged that stock has been pur
chased ,or Gen. Swain, that evidence OF it
shall be produced. They would not be sats-
fed with telegrams stating that stock had
been purchased. Mr.. Bateman, he said, al
legged that he made certain purchases and they
denied it, and by this proceeding served q
notice on the prosecution that they would re-
quire proper evidences of the alleged
The address of the notice and
present it properly TO the Judge Advocate of
the court. He thereupOn changed the address
on the document, which Is a formal notice TO
produce in court certificates OF the purchase
of certain shares of stock 10y Bateman a Co.
on Gen. Swaim's account, ana aided to 1t a
formal declaration to the court that unless
the papers called Tor are produced the de-
iense will object to the production Of any
other testimony as to such purchases.
NONE OF THE PAPERS IN THE GOVERN
MENTS POSSESSION.
Following the presentation of this notice,
the Judge Advocate presented an af1idaVit
drawn up and sworn to by him, stating that
he has not IN his custody any of the documents
mentioned IN the paper presented by the de-
that none OF such documents are
in the custody of the United
States. Before proceeding with the regular
order the Judge Advocate called the atCen-
tlon of the court to the language of the coun-
sci for the defense during previous sessions
OF the court with respect 10 Gen. Pope, Presi-
dent of the Court of Inquiry, which made
the original investigation OF this case, TO other
officials who, 1t was lnslnuated by them, were
behind the prosecution, and to Mr.. Bateman,
one OF the witnesses for the government. He
sald tnat tnls was courC OF justice. Ihey
were not trying case at special session in
the New ! ork COMBS police court, and there
should be here that degree Of respect for the
court IN the use of language, which is en-
forced in other tribunals of the United States.
He said that he must object to the couasel for
the de ense holding up tordlcule q prominent
General officer of the army because he
had sat President of a former tribunal, and
TO their lnslnuation with reference to other
proper constituted authorities, and that III
this line of language were TO be persisted in
he should move rule Of court that the coun-
eel who Otfends in this particular shall be dis
barred from appearing in this case. The
counsel for the defense disclaimed any inten-
ti0n OF disrespect to the court.
GROSVENOR READY TO GO.
Gen. GrOsvenOr SAID that he objected to the
criticisms OF the Judge Advocate, but was
ready, whenever the court directed him so to
do, to pack his trunk and leave. Following
this interruption of the regular proceedings
the Judge Advocate announced to the court
that In view of the array of counsel on the
other side, and of the fact that his position
required him to be responsible for the ma
chlnery of the court, thus preventing his
giving full attention TO the arguments OF the
counsel on the other side, he desired to ass0-
clate with him jefferson Chandler of the
Washing gtOn bar.
The counsel for the defense asked for leave
TO consult together as to this proceeding, and
after a few moments conference objected to
the appearance of Mr.. Chandler in this case.
Gen. Grosvenor said that it was their under
standing that the uniform ruling Of military
courts in the United States was against such
a proceeding. He cOntended that the intro
ductiOn of this associate counsel In the record
would be an error fatal to the case. The de-
fense, he said, objected to it as illegal. He
asked the Judge Advocate if it were not true
that application had been made the Secretary
of War to allow the employment of Mr.. Cham
dler in this case, and tnat the application had
been refused. Maj Gardner refused TO an
swer this question as an improper one.
He said that preliminary to introducing
Mr.. Chandler to the court he had madeofhcial
application TO the proper authorities. Inc
court went into secret session to consider the
question. and decided that the application of
the Judge Advocate should be granted.
CHANDLER's FIRST WORK.
Mr.. Chandler then addressed the court on
the demurrer to the second specification in
terposed by the defense. The charge against
Gen. Swain was, he said, that OF reluctance
on his part to permit an investigation OF the
charges that were made in Mr.. Batemans
letter. The specifications, he said, went fur
ther than this, and says that he sought to evade
and avoid an investigation OF these charges.
He thought that the only inquiry to be made
here was whether if the charge Affecting his
integrity be made against an Oihcer OF the
rank of Gen. swain 1t is conduct becoming
to him as an officer to even rest silently un-
der the charge, yet this speclncatl0n does not
merely charge him with silence, but with
seeking improperly to avoid an investigation
of the charges against him. He asked II an
officer who is a legal oracle OF the army, mo
speaks the voice of legal practice for the
army, can rest snbmisslvely under charges
which taint his honor. Would not that spread
Generalization through the army itselfl This
court must, he said, estimate the gravity CT
this charge by the position Of the officer
against whom it Is made, and whether an
officer occupying that position may be per-
mitted to negotiate for the suppression OF
charges against him.
Judge Shellabarger replied, repeating
much of his argument in support Of
the demurrer to the first specification.
in which he gave his construction OF the
meaning of the language OF article 6l OF the
articles of war as to conduct unbecomlng an
officer and gentleman.
HE CARRIES HIS POINT.
He said that the statute upon which this ar
ticle is based does not propose an impossible
or utopian standard Of ethics for the army.
I hut a gfandard which nFpgFrIbps that which
units man for the society of gentlemen,
and that only is the kinu OF conduct unbe-
coming an officer and gentleman. Nothing
| in this specification charged such conduct.
On the conclusion of Mr.. Shellabargers re-
marks, the court room was cleared while the
court considered the demurrer. On the re-
| opening I the doors the Judge Advocate an
nounced that the court sustained the demur-
rsr. Gen. Swain was then arralgned upon the
| third specification of the first charge thai
Gen. Swain had failed to demand an lnVesti-
cation of the charges made by Mr.. Bateman.
and that when such charges were brought 70
his attention by the Secretary OF war he
(Swaim) had in an IndOrsement to the Sccre-
| tary's letters made statements that were un-
candid, false and intended to deceive the
Secretary of War. To this specification the
defense demurred. The ground of the de-
murrer, as stated by the counsel, was that the
specification does not state facts sufhclent 70
constitute the offense charged. After the
argument the demurrer was oVerrulea, Win 1aLL
! leave to the Judge Advocate to amend the
specification by striking out the clause con-
| cerning failure 10 demand a court Of inquiry
/ to the amended specification. Gen. swain
then arraigned on the specification
| to the second charge that he failed to report
/ to the proper authority. although he knew
| the fret that Col. Morrow had duplicated his
/ pay account. His counsel interpesed de.
| murrer to this, the grounds Of which he stated
| to be that the specification does not state
| Iacts sufficient to support the charge OF neg
| lect of duy. and that it does not state facts
| sufficient to make it appear that It was
| the duty of the accused to make known TO
| any one any information he had IN relation to
| was submitted without argument by the de-
| fense, and pending its examination by the
| prosecution the court adjourned until to-
morrow.