New-York tribune., 1885-01-04
LILLE SWAIN COrRT MARTIAL.

WAsuINGTov, Jan. 3.-Thc proceedings be-
fore tle swain court martial this morning emily
ened by long and acrimonious wrangle between coun'
sci growing ont of the presentation by Judge shcla-
barger of counsel for the defence, Of written motion 10
the court stating That II would be unfair 10 compel com
sci for the defence make argument without hearing
any mart of the argument OF tie prosecution o re-
oucstcd that both sides be restricted to one argument or
else that the prosecution bo directed tc state s case III
the opening and be allowed the closing argument thus
giving counsel for the defence opportunity 10 learn what
points would be made by the prosecution Judge shea-
barger said that after tho adjournment OF court prior to
be recess he had written TO the Judge Advocate about
the matter. The Judge Advocate said mat ms letter
reached him only on December 81 aief hs naa maze ~
his arrangements He added ihat Inc ettcr was uhe,,
december 60 but that II was addressed To him sinpy az
%se" s i' laid a'ISs iSst he looked Upon
this letter as trick on the part OF the ucich,r.
Judge shelabarger replied ho,ly to thls aspesi9' S
said that from the beginning the Judge ADVOCATE nan
been lnsinuatng various things against the defence inc
Judge Advocate disclame any Intention OF doing moro
General Swain then made statement as To- tue seha
which he said that ne had sent IL by his messenger Win
his Official mall to the War Department on the DAY on
The moon presented by Judge sheabargcr, the CON
cnson OF which the court reserved the matter for m
The redirect examination Of General Swain was then
resumed He gave the Court summary OF the CONDITION
OF his accounts with Bateman Co. a. they appeared 10
him at the time that directed Bright, Humphrey Co.
10 hiring the suite the due BILL" IN order 10 show the
owed him IN the neiPhborhood or 900. In answer 70
questions of his counsel he said that the suit against
Bateinan dismissed Ia consequence Of an agreement
entered into himself aud Batemal To rcicr tho
differences between them to arbitration Tie dlsnsal
OF the suit was simply transfer OF the ca1o from inc
court to arbitration aud the matter Is st In arDltrn
tiOn. -
General swain lie will be called again by his counsel
after consultation with hem aud on the CONCLUSION IN
this redirect examination tho prosecution VIII ag"'h
crOss-examine him. 80 49, ,.s h,,
Robert L. DE Akers testified that be was employed ny
Dateman A Co as stcnographer and telegraph operator
from December 1882, until May, 1888 Several ques'
tions were asked intended to call from him some s'c
Inent ms 10 the alleged requirement by Mr. Bateina lh
he ithe wness should post false quotations oi stochs @
the TO form Of all OF these questions aa
finally by direction Of the court test question ma
drawn up by the defence and put to the witness uo
asked: "Did you resign your position IN the scrvf
Rateman Co.. and II your resignation had any rciauo
10 any requirement OF you in respect OF wnat yon
should do in connection with transcrlons
or reporting stock quotations other business tht
over the wires; state what that requirement was
what reasons any you gave TO them Tor your @ a.
ton" The Judge Advocate objected 10 this question a.
being argumenative improper, leading and SUIT
aud after a long argument the Court went INTO sco,o2
session 10 consider It. Two hours later was
that the objection Of the Judge Advocate had peeh s
taned. -, -. "a orar,-
The decision of the Court upon the motion as 10
ments was announced IL IL that cotnsel TOT tic
fcnse may make their argument or ~ 10 ,he
associate counsel for the Government and tlyt tne a
cused man. through either Of his counsel may fnets
reply to the associate counsel, ana the Ju"sc Aa'oe
may present the closing argument