National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1885-03-20
THE uAzEN couar-MAnr1Ai.
Counsel for the DEFENSE Consumes tho
Day In Argument.

Day In Argument.
There was large crowd and many
bouquets in the Hazen court.martial
rooms at the Ebbtt House yesterday.
Gen. Hazen got bunch of roses. Mr..
Mackoy asked to be allowed to prove that
tho article in the Chicago Tribune con-
corning Gen. Hazon's lettor appeared in
that paper on Feb. 30 and not the 25th, as
IL appeared on the records Of the official
reports. Tho judge advocate objected,
but the court decided to admit the cor
roetion, and the counsel secured copy
Of the paper Of Feb. 20. The dispatch
did not appear In II, and Mr.. Mackey said
that they must assume that the dispatch
appeared in the issue Of the 2oth.
MR.. MACREY THEN OPENED
the argument for tho defense. He said
that tho principle involved in the cause
was greater than tho cause itself The
specifications to the charge recite, he
said, that this act of tho Secretary Of
War was Tin the performance Of his Off.
oial duty" but the defense deny that the
decision of the secretary was made in
the performance of his official duty. He
said that IL Is defect fatal to the specif-
cation that no proof has been adduced to
support the allegation that the decision
of the Secretary Of War was not to send
an expedition in September was made in
the performance of his official duty. He
| argued that under the statute the Prosi-
dent is personally charged with the duty
to send out such expeditions. He con-
tended that such duty does not inhcro in
the Secretary Of War. Ho called atten-
ton to the facts that the order to send
the Greedy party north was
SIGNED ny PRESIDENT HAYES,
and the order appointing tho commando
Of the expedition was signed by President
| Garfield.
In the next allegation that tho accused,
in his annual report for 1884, criticised
and impugned the propriety Of the action
of the Secretary Of War, no argued that
the language in that report which was
objected TO, that after the return Of the
Proteus party on Sept. 10 there was still
time to send effective relief to the Greedy
party, could not be construed as criti'
cising or impugning the official action oil
the Secretary, although
THE SECRETARY HAD so CONSTRUCT
THEM.
lie argued that In order to secure con
viction Of conduct prejudicial to good
order and military discipline, under the
sixty-second article of war, 1t must be
shown that criticism Of u superior Off
Ger, alleged as a violation of that articl,
of war, was o criticism Of an act OF mill
tary administration. He pointed out tina
the decision of the Secretary of War al
legged to have been criticised by the
accured was not an act Of military admin
istration, but
RELATED TO A NAUTICAL QUESTION.
Tho second specification was that Gen
Hazen addressed and sent to the Score
tary Of War letter concerning the de
cision of the Secretary in the matter o
the relief expedition without havini
been authorized or requested by tho Sec
rotary to send such letter. Judg
Mackey declared that there is no law re
quiring the chief signal otlicor
TO OBTAIN LEAVE TO ADDRESS tn
SECRETARY,
and the Secretary could not mako tn
action of Gen. Hazen the ground of
charge of conduct prejudiclal to good or
der and military discipline. He con
tinued to point out the defects of tn
specifications aud reviewed the evideuc
at length.