St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1884-11-21
THE SWAIN TRIAL.
Another Day Of FiIlibustering by
Counsel for Swaim-NOthing of
Importance Done.


WASHINGTON, Nov. 20.-Upon opening
Judge advocate Informed the court he had
been served by the defense with an account
OF an address to A. Bateman in the nature
of anOtice to him 10 procure certain docu-
ments. He said he could not be called upon
70 act as a medium Of communication with
Bateman, being here solely as representa-
tive OF the United States
Gen. GrOsvenOr, the counsel for the de-
Tense, said he desired by this proceeding TO
get at the books and papers which lie back of
this proceeding. The defense should ulti-
case when testimony should be sought to be
brought in touching the transactions between
Bateman II Co. and Gen. Swain, they would
show that the alleged stock had been pur-
chased for Swain, and that the evidence
of it should be produced. They would not
be satisfied with kilograms stating the stock
had been purchased. Bateman, he said, al
legged he made certain purchases; they de-
MED it, and by this proceeding served notice
on the prosecution that they would require
proper evidences of the alleged purchases.
He would, however, change the address of
the notice, and present it properly to the
judge advocate. He thereupon changed the
ddTess on the document, which is forma
notice to produce in court certificates Of pur-
chase of certain shares of stock by Bateman
q Co. on Swaim's account, and added to it
formal declaration to the court that unless
the papers called for are produced, the de-
Tense will object TO production of any other
testimony as to such purchases.
The following is the presentment of this
notice:
The judge advocate has presented an aft
davit stating he has not in his custody any
documents mentioned, presented by defense,
and that he is informed and believes none
such papers are in the custody Of the United
States.
The Judge advocate announced that he de-
eided TO associate with him in the prosecu-
ton Jefferson Chandler, OF the Washington
ton bar. Chandler was formerly Swaim's
lawyer.
Gen. Grosvenor objected TO Chandeliers APP
pearance in the case as illegal, and asked
the Judge advocate If It were not true, appli-
cation had been made 10 the secretary of
war TO allow the employment OF Chandler in
this case, and the application been refused.
Major Gardner refused to answer this
question, as improper.
The court went into secret session to con-
slider the question, and decided the appica-
ton OF the Judge advocate should be granted.
Chandler then addressed the court ON the
demurrer to the second specification inter
posed.
Judge Shellabarger replied to Chandler,
Il 4
was cleared, aud when the doors reopened
the judge advocate announced the court sus-
/ taiEed the demurrer.
Gen. Swain was then arraigned upon the
third specification. The first charge that
Gen. Swain had failed to demand an inves-
| tigatiOn. The charges were made by Bate
man and that when such charges were
brought tohis attention by the secretary OF
war be (Swaim) had in an Endorsement tC
| the secretary's letter made statements thai
were uncandid, false and intended To de-
/ ceive the secretary of war. To this specfca-
! cation a demurrer WAS entered, and argued
/ briefly, when the room WAS cleared that the
court might consider the demurrer. When
/ the doors opened it was announced the
/ demurrer had been overruled,
with leave to the Judge advocate q
amend the specification by striking out the
words did fail 10 demand a court OF inquiry
/ or other official in Investigation into the grave
accusation thus made against his character
as an officer and gentleman, which accusa-
I don, as be knew, had been widely publshGd
in the newspapers at the time" The amended
specialization was then read 10 Gen. Swain,
who pleaded not guilty 10 it, and enters the
same plea to the fourth specification,
which alleges that he (Swaim)
\ threatened to use his Official position
/ to Impair the value Of certain securities
given by Col. Morrow to certain brokers,
unless they (the brokers) paid a claim which
he had against Morrow.
He was then arraigned on the entire first
charge OF conduct unbecoming an officer
and a gentleman and pleaded ''noi
guilty."
He was then arraigned on the specification
of the second charge, that he failed TO report
TO the proper authority, although he knew
that Col. Morrow bad a duplication
of his pay account His counse
interpOsed demurrer to this
the grounds of which he stated TO be that thu
specification does not state facts sufficient 4
support the charge of neglect. of duty; tina
it does not state facts sufficient to maxi
it appear that it was the duty of the accused
10 make known to any one any information
he had in relation to Col MOrrOW's pay &C
counts. This demurrer was submitted with
out argument by the defense. and pending
its examination by the prosecution the cour
adjourned.