The Evening critic. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1881-1885, 1885-03-13
rHn HAzEN oouRr-MARrIAL.
A Day OF Objections.


Satisfactory arrangements having boon
made with Mr.. James L. Andom, the stenog-
rapher, by which no is to receive his pay
per folio, instead of per diem, the Hazen
Court Martial proceeded this morning on
its third day.
Tho Judge Advocate road an application
from the counsel for tho accused, asking
that subpmnas be issued for Mr.. IL. b.
Wight the Washington correspondent Of
the Chicago Tribune, and Mr., Edmund
Hudson, editor OF the Capital Tho Judge
Advocate thought that counsel should be
required TO show that the evidence Of the
parties would be material TO the case.
Mr.. Mackey thought IL would DO an ex-
tra0rdiDary proceeding to compel counsel
for the defendant to disclose the nature of
the testimony to be given by his witnesses.
Mr.. Mackey added that he would ask for a
subpoena for Hudson. The objection of the
Judge Advocate was overruled aud the
subpoena Issued.
Sergeant James G, Mclaughlin, employed
in the Signal Office, testified that an annual
report of the Secretary of War was received
mt the Signal Office December IL, 1883. The
Judge. Advocate read memorandum which
accompanied this report, which said that
the Secretary of War and tho Secretary of
the Navy had reached decision that 1t was
impracticable to send relief expedition to
the Arctic regions that year. This memo
fandum the Judge. Advocate wanted tO'put
in evidence,
Mr., Mackey opposed this on tho ground
that the issue hero involved only tic de-
cision of the Secretary Of War, and tho
memorandum related to the Joint decision
of the two Secretaries.
Judge Mackoy submitted n written OBJ
lection to tho introduction in evidence of
the memorandum for the reason that it pur-
ported to BIO the joint decision of tho Sec
rotary Of War aud of the Navy that II was
not practicable to send relief for Greedy in
the year 1883; the accused is not charged
with impugning such joint discussion, but
ho Is charged with having impugned the
motives Of the Secretary of War.
The objection made to the introduction
of tho memorandum in evidence was not
sustained by the Court.
Captain S. NJ. Mills, Acting Chief Signal
Officer, was called as a witness and rccug-
ni2ed copy of a dispatch he sent to Gem
eral Hazen September 10, 1885, when the
latter was ut Port Townsend, w. L. This
dispatch states that the Secretaries of War
and Navy had, after consulting with OK.
plorers, decided that nothing In tho way OF
relieving Greedy could be done that year.
The witness was asked If General Hazen
was acting as Chief Signal officer Deem
Der II, 1883, the day upon which the Sec
rotary Of Wars report was received at the
Signal Office. The witness could not say
unless he consulted the records Of the of
flee. An adjournment for half an hour
was taken in order to enable him to see
the records before answering the question
After recess Captain Mills again took the
stand and said that after consulting the
records he found that General Hazen was
not absent any day during tho month oil
December, 1888.
Edmund Hudson, editor Sunday C,tpitdl
next took the stand and was asked if HI
would state who wrote paragraph il
the Capital of March 1, 1850
Judge-Advocate objected to putting in
evidence extracts from newspapers; h,
could not permit interjection Of sucl
matter.
Mr.. Mackey stated that it was proposed
to trace tho paragraph in the Capital, by al
| unbrokon chain of links, to the very doc
| OF the Secretary of War himself, aud woulI
show that it was written by the hand o
| authority.
Pen ding the decision on the objection o
the Jndge-Advocate, the court adjourned
to meet Tomorrow at IL o'clock o. III.