Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1884-11-17

The Swain court martial met with military
punctualty at II O'Clock this morning in Room d.
Corcoran building. All the members were present.
Gen. Swain, the accused, was accompanied by his
counsei, Hon. Charles II. Gr0svenor. OF Ohio, and
Hon. Samuel Shelabarger. of this city. Mr.. Bate
man, who made the original charges against Gen.
swain, was In the court room. and there were q
numUef OF army officers and other interested pres
ent. After the record OF Saturdays proceedings
were read by the judge advocate, Major Gardner,
ne called upon Gen. swain to state his objections
TO any members OF the court II he had any.
THE ACCUSED OBJECTS TO GEN. ROCHESTER AS A
MEMBER OF THE COURT.
MI GroSvenor read for Gen. Swain a paper OBJ
ject.ng to Brig. Gen. WIN. B. Rochester paymaster
general, as member of the court, on the ground
IN the case, In relation to Col Morrow's pay ac-
counts, and ID That it was well-known that Gen.
Swain Swain favored the appointment OF Col Daniel Nc
Clure as paymaster general at the time Gen. Roch-
ester Was so appointed, and for that reason Gen.
Rochester could not be an impartial Judge In the
case.
Mr. GroSvenor made brief argument calling at.
tention to the fact that Gen. Rochester was wit
ness before the court OF inquiry which first investi-
gated these charges and stating that counsel con-
Sicered his testimony OF vital Importance. He did
not want TO put the challenge upon so narrow a
a ground as the prejudice that might grow out OF
any facts In connection With promotion; that was
question for the officer TO decide himself. lie
thought the first ground OF the challenge was IN
anSwerable.
Maj. Gardner asked If the counsel desired to ex-
anime Gen. Rochester on his poir dire.
MI Grosvenor said that he did not care to present
tnat aspect OF the challenge at that time as he did
not deem it necessary and as he understood t. such
objection could be made at any time before the
court was sworn.
Mai. Gardner argued that II the testimony as to
the second ground OF objection was not submitted
1t hereafter.
did not believe that the rules OF practice governing
SouIG lnartlals had yet reached such degree OF
DaroaIous Development as would justify the ground
MAJOR Gardner said that If hereafter O new
ground or challenge, not now known to counsel,
came to his knowledge, he might present it. but he
known to him now.
MI Grosvenor, az er consultation With Mr. Shell
iaOarger, said he would present evidence on the
first ground, and urge no further objection to
Gen. Rochester He then read the evidence given
Oy Gen. Rochester before the court OF inquiry in
relation TO Col. Morrow's pay accounts. He said
IL was part OF the dsfense to show that the pay
master general knew OF the charges made concern
ing COZ. Morrow's accounts This was vital to the
delense, as 1t could not be held to be the duty OF
Gen. Swain TO notify offlcer OF a condition OF
affairs OF which that officer was informed.
Mr. Shel!abaTger argued at some length. holding
That the irst ground OF challenge was valid.
Major Gardner, in his argument held that as to
the second ground OF objection, the court could
not decide upon mere statements OF counsel AS
10 the frst ground, he maintained that the record
OF the court OF inquiry showed that Gen Rochester
Knew nothing OF the charges concerning Col Nor
THE COURT CLEARED
The court room was cleared while the court con-
sidered the challenge, but the doors were immedi-
ately leopened TO enable Gen. Rochester to make
statement. Gen. Rochester said that he had no
personal or official knowledge OF the alleged dupli-
catlon or pay accounts by Col. Morrow; that his
knowledge was derived entirely from rurnors and
newspaper statements. The court was then again
cleared, Cen Rochester leaving his seat mem
Der OF the court, and withdrawing to the ante
room.
GEN. ROCHESTER EXCUSED.
After quarter OF an hours del1beration the doors
were opened, the judge advocate announced that
the challenge was sustained, and Gen. Rochester
was excused from further attendance upon the
court as member.
GEN. SWAIN OBJECTS TO GEN. scHoFIELD.
Gen. Swain was then asked II he had objection to
make to any other member of the court and replied
Mr.. Sheliabarger then read paper setting forth
objections 70 Maj Gen. John NJ. Schofeld the presi-
dent or the court It was set forth that Gen.
cause, first, the accused when called upon by Gen.
Pope Tor a review OF the proceedings OF the FItZ
John Porter board of inquiry made a review Sc
Vereiy cltlclS,ng the action OF members OF the
board, and especially Gems Schofield and
Terry; second that it became the duty OF the
Geo schoed tb a1 bTob trial OF
Gen. Schoteld, since deceased to comment severely
upon the conduct of Major Schoneld; Sd. that in
severely criticised the conduct Of Gen.
Schofield as commandant at West Point; and 9Th.
that the close and intimate relations OF the accused
with President Garfield were well known, and 1t
appeared as matter OF record that early In Presi-
dent Garf1eldS administration Gen. SchofelG was
relieved OF command and placed on waiting orders.
Mr.. GrOSven0r read from orders and official
records evidence to sustain the statements made in
the challenge.
Gen. Swain was sworn, and testified to having
made the review referred to Of the proceedings Of
the F1Z John Porter board. He was acting as
friend and legal adviser OF Gen. Pope. He was
Judge advocate general when the order relieving
CEN Schotield from command was made. AS Judge
general he made a review OF the Whiuta-
ker case, which was now on file in the office These
were confidential communications. At the time Of
the order OF relieving Gen Schoneld witness rela-
tons with President Garfield were intimate and
Close
Gen. Schofleid was examined on his yor dire.
He SAID he was member of the board OF inquiry
on the Fiz-JOhn Porter case. He believed he had
read the review OF the referred to at the time
OF Its publication. He thought also that he con-
nected Gen. Swain with this review, but was not
positive. 1t caused him no concern. He had read
the review OF the court martial in the of Major
Schofield, and presumed that he knew at the time
that Gen. Swain made the review. He was
OF the military post at West Point at
the time OF the Whitaker trial. and had read he be-
lieved portion OF the review OF the case. In
relation to the order relieving him from command,
the witness said that he had never imagined that
with that order. The order was issued rather at
his {Gen SchOfelds) own request than for any
other reason He regarded the act one OF perfect
between President Garfield and himself
He was not, he said, conscious OF any prejudice
against Gen. Swain at all In relation to the cases
cited he said he did not think he mad connected
Gen. Swain with the acts He attributed them to
the chief OF whom Gen. Swain was an assistant
Whatever feeling he had was towards the chief
He did not think the revelations to-day would pro-
duce much effect on his mind. He remarked that
he recognized the fact that the next thing import
ant to justice was that the accused should realize
that he received justice. While he was wholly un-
OF any feeling that would prevent him
from doing the same justice in this case as in the
case of any other officer, he would beg to be ex-
cused as member OF the court rather than have
the accused under the impression that any men,
Der Of the court was prejudiced against him.
Argument was then submitted upon the chal-
lenge.
Major Gardner, the judge advocate, during his
position by reason OF his relations with the Judge
advocate generals Office He was also connected
with the Fitz John Porter and the Whitaker
cases.
The court was then cleared.
THE CHALLENGE OF GEN. sCHoFIELD NOT SUSTAINED
GEN. TERRY EXCUSED FROM SERVICE
When the doors OF the court were opened the
Judge advocate announced that the challenge
against Gen. Schof1eld had not been sustained
Gen. Terry was then challenged by Gen. Swaims
counsel upon the grounds that he, TOO, was men,
Der OF the board that tried Gen. FitZ John Porter
lattOn.
Gen. Terry was asked II he had any prejudice
against Gen. Swain.
Nopersonal prejudice" be replied.
"YOu limit your reply; why do you do that?"
asked Mr.. GrosvenOr.
.To have an opening for another question" was
the answer. 81 have my opinion to the propriety
of his appointment was the earnest advocate Of
another person for that position"
To the general question as to whether he thought
he could try the case without prejudice he said he