Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1885-05-18
THE WALES COURT-MARTTAL.
Ex-Sccretary Chandler a Witness.

The Wales court-martial proceeded this MORN
Ing to hear the testimony of the prosecution in
support of the charges against Medical Director
Wales of culrabIe ineliciency and neglect of
duty while holding the office of chief OF the bu-
reau of medicine and surgery.
The first witness called was Hon. William +.
Chandler, ex-Secrctary of the Navy. Mr. Chand-
Ter was examined by Lieut.. Lem1y, judge advo-
cate The witness said he had preferred the
charges against DIR. Wales which were now
The Judge advocate asked when the matters
constituting the basis OF these changes first
came To the knowledge of the witness.
Mr.. Wilson objected to this as immaterial.
Mr.. Blair called attention to the fact that the
regulation concerning limitation applied only
when it appeared that the authority convening
the court knew of these matters three wears
prior to bringing the charges. Ii the witness.
VINO was about to leave the city, testified that
ne ala or did not know OF these matters three
would be settled.
points raised in his argument i'm support of a
demurrer to the charges, maintaining that the
Secretary of the Navy had right to make
statute of limitations; but that the matter was
settled by the act of Congress, which prescribed
that no one should be tried for offences commit
ted three years before the charges were brought.
Alter 1urther argument the court decided to
admit the question.
Mr.. Chandler said he first became acquainted
win these matters i'm the spring and summer
OF 1854. Daniel Carrigan, he said. was chief
clerk OF the bureau of medicine until February
ith. 1854 The witness received an anonymous
letter In relation to Carrigan six months a
year before DIR. Wales term of office surgeon
general expired, in February, 1881. Witness
handed the letter to DIR. Wales. lie believed
the letter remained with DIR. Wales. AT any
rate, the witness, after diligent search had been
Unable to find it. The letter called his attention
To Mr. Cariigan rs an unfit person To be chief
clerk of the bureau: it charged him with habits
OF intoXication. Whether it made any other
charges witness could not remember. When he
handed the letter 10 DIR. Wales, he said To him
That when an anonymous letter stated iac;s he
Thought 1t we'll to inquire whether the facts eN-
isted. He asked aim to make an invest igation.
subsequently DR.. Wales reported to witness
that he had made the Investigation, and was
satisfied that there was no foundation for the
Charges. Witness asked him whether he WAS
satisfied with Mr.. Carrigan, and had fu.i conf
dence i'll him. DIR. Wales answered in the ariir
NATIVE. Witness then said that if DR.. W:tics,
as chief OF the bureau Was satisfied with CARR
gan rs chief clerk he (thc Witness would
pursue the matter no further. The witness
Thought that upon that he mad allowed Dr.
Wales TO retain the letter in his posse sion. He
had no recollection that Or. W ;tlcs ever called
u The witness attention any purchase of med
ical supplies or consulted with him about such
purchase. The requisitions for the money To
pay for these purchases were made upon the
bureau. These requistions stated the appro-
priatIonS upon which the sum, were 10 be
drawn, but did not state the item for which
payment was to be made.
Mr.. Chand .er identified a letter addressed by
him i'm May, 1882, to The chiel OF the bureau of
medicine and surgery, making inquiry as to
the employ ymcnt and relative efficiency OF EN-
ployes of the bureau, having number OF quc,-
tions 20 which answers were written by Dr.
Wales.
Mr.. Blair said that this was offered to show
that DIR. Wales attention was called to his IL
ployes in May, 1SS2, and he was then asked To
make inquiry as to his employees. The answers
were favorable to all the employees except one,
who was reported to be old and feeble, having
been in service for forty years. This report was
In cipher, the employees Icing designated by
numbers only. Another paper. in which the
naines had been filled in, but was objected TO
because II was copy and not an original
paper. The witness said he remembered
very Well the Interpretation he put
on the report as to Carrigan and Kirk wood.
The defense objected to this iuterpre .ation.
MIR. Blair said the prosecution wanted to show
that DIR. Wales then reported Carrigan and
kiikwood as being most efficient. the court
was cleared while the members consulted as to
whether Mr.. Chandler would be permitted to
explain the meaning of the report as 10 Carri-
gan and kirl,wOOd.
When the court was opened the judge advO-
cate announced that the objection of the ae-
cuScd was sustained. and the question pro-
pounded to Mr.. Chandler to ascertain his inter-
probation Of Dr. Wales report SO lar as it re-
lated to Carrigan and NirkwOOd was not ad-
mitteJ. Mr.. Blair then submitted a paper-a
copy of the cipher port with additions made
by Mr.. Chandler giving the names OF the en-
ployes re.erred to. 1nis paper Ir. Chandler
said ne had made out for tile judge advocate or
for the district attorney. Alter considerable
discussion the court took a recess to enable the
witness to obtain the paper serving rs key to
the ci ipher report