The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-11-21
NATIONAL CAPITAL NEWS,
Concluded from First Page. !

be satisfied with kilograms stating that stock had
been purchased. Bateman, he said, alleged
that he made certain purchases they denied 1t,
and by this proceeding served notice on the
prosecution that they would require proper evi-
dence of the alleged purchases. He would,
however, change 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 formal notice to pro
duce in court the certificates of purchase of GER
tain shares of stock by Bateman u Co, on
Swaims account, and added to it formal dec
laration to the court that unless the papers
called for are produced the defense will object
to the production of any other testimony as to
purchase. Following the presentation of this
notice. the judge advocate presented an affidavit
stating that he has not in his custody any of the
documents mentioned in the paper presented by
the defense, and that he is informed and be-
lieves no such documents are in the custody of
the United States.
The judge advocate announced that he desired
to associate with HIM in the prosecution of the
case Mr.. jeff Chandler, of the Washington bar.
Chandler was Batemans counsel before the
court of inquiry
Gen Grosvenor objected to Mr.. Chambers ap.
pearance in the case as illegal, ard asked the
Judge advocate if it were not true that appica-
ton had been made to the Secretary of War to
allow the employment of Mr.. Chandler in this
case, but the application had been refused.
Major Gardner refused to answer this question,
saying it was an improper one.
The court went into secret session tn consider
the question, and decided that the application of
the judge advocate should be granted
Mr. Chandler then addressed the court on the
demurrer to the second specification interposed
by the defense
Judge Shellabarger replied to Mr. Chandler,
and upon the conclusion of his remarks the room
was cleared. When the doors were reopened
the judge advocate announced that the court sus-
tanned the demurrer.
General Swain was then arraigned upon the
third specification of the first charge-that he
had failed to demand an investigation of the
charges made by Bateman and that when such
charges were brought to his attention by the
Secretary of War he (Swaim) had, in an in
dorsement to the Secretary's letter, made state
ments that were uncandid. false and intended to
deceive the Secretary of War To this specih-
cation a demurrer entered and argued
briefly, when the room cleared that the court
might consider the demurrer
When the doors were reopened IL was an
nounced that the demurrer had been oyerruled,
with leave to the judge advocate to amend the
specification by striking ont the words did fail
to demand court of inquiry or other official
investigation into the grave accusations thus
made against his character as officer and gen
tleman, which accusations. as he knew, had been
widely published in newspapers at the time"
The amended specification then read.
General Swain pleaded mot guilty" to it, and
entered the same plea to the fourth specification,
which alleges that he tSwaim) threatened to use
his official position to impair the value of GER
tain securities given by Colonel Morrow to GER
tain brokers unless they (the brokers) paid
claim which he held against Morrow.
He was then arraigned as to the entire first
charge-conduct unbecoming an officer and gen
tleman-ard pleaded mot guilty. He was then
arragned on the first specification of the second
charge-that he failed to report to the proper
authority, although he knew the fact that Col
onel Morrow had duplicated his pay account
His counsel interposed demurrer to this, on
the grounds that the specification does not state
facts sufficient to support charge of neglect of
duty; that it does not state facts sufficient to
make it appear that it was the duty of the &C.
cused TO make known to any the infOrma-
ton he had in relation to Col. Morrow's pay &C
counts
This demurrer was submitted without argu-
ment by the defense, and pending its examina
ton by the prosecution the court adjourned