National Republican., 1885-08-10
SMITHS DEFENSE.
ELOQUENT REVIEW OF THE EVI-
DENCE BY Mr.. JEFF. CHANDLER.
The Alleged Case Of the Prose-
cutiou Driven Completely Out
of Court-No Crime Charged
and no OHense Committed.

Below are presented the arg uments
delivered before the naval court. martial
convened for the trial of Paymaster
General, Joseph A. Smith, and which
closed the siitings last week. after
seventeen days spent in hearing evi.
dence and summings up thereof. The
first is by Mr.. JEFF Chandler, of this city,
that following by Hon. George s. Bout.
we'll, of Massachusetts.
Mn. President AND GENTLEMEN OF THE
CouRT; think it is proper for us to de.
termine what we are here to try, and if
there is anything before this court upon
which judgment can be rendered against
the accused There are certain bounda-
ries Of this case fixed by agreement, aud
there are certain landmarks in it estab.
lished by consent. If the inquiry re-.
lating to subjects about which we disa.
gree does not include anything which
authorizes this court to visit any punish
ment, however slight, upon this accused,
the conclusion Of the court must be, as a
matter of course, in his favor.
It is conceded by the government that
no crime is charged. On page 43 Of the
record the representative Of the govern
ment sail
L do not understand that we have here to do
with a crime l understand that the accused
is prraigned here for sundry breaches Of dis
cipline rs an officer of the navy OF the United
States: that he has been guilty Of disorderly
and culpaby In efficient conduct. That isa very
different thing from crime.
That this admission was deliberately
made as definition Of the charges that
are here preferred there can be no doubt,
because on the fourth day of the trial
controversy came up again as to wha,
was charged, and the representative oI
the government said, in answer to my
inquiry or statement, as follows:
the court has sustained the. speciGca tioni
it has sustained them under the Interpretation
which tho government has given them, and
tho government interprets those specifications
ps charging Gen. Smith with nothing bu
negligence.
Mr.. Maury. That is what / say.
Mr.. Chandler. Very well. Now they
desire to inoculate those specification
with allegations of C llusion.
Mr.. Maury. No, sir.
bIr. Chandler. Corrupt arrangement,
witt, Mr.. Brown; corrupt favoritisn
toward Mr.. Brown.
Mr.. Maury. No, sir.
THE ABsEScE or CRIME CONCEDED.
Now, it is conceded by the representa-
tive of the government that no collusiol
with Brown, no corruption in the con
duct specified, is charged. suppos
this court will not visit penalty upo
the accused for that which is not charged
and no matter what exaggerated force
sought to be given to the evidence in thi
case, that exaggeration will not be pei
mitted to extend beyond what is charged
1t is here solemnly conceded this
nothing of criminal or corrupt natur
is charged. So that when these gentle
men, in their zeal to cover Paymaste
General Smith with dshonor, give
strained and exaggerated interpretatio
90 evidence, ] want this court to remeu
ber that the prosecution corcede tht
they have charged the accused with notl
ing which is collusive, corrupt, or Grim
nal and, therefore, if they give th
evidence an exaggerated Interpretation
there is no charge here to which it ca
be applied.
What is the nature and philosophy o
the accusation which we are here t
meet? 1t is asserted that Paymast {
General Smith occupied certain plac
in the administration of certain execl
tive power. These specifications lea,
us in no doubt concerning the attitut
in which he acted, that of subordinate
to tha Secretary of the Navy. In spec
fcaiion IL it is said:
BY an express provision of law, to wit, Sc
tion 420 Of tho Revised Statutes Of the Unit
master general, as chief of said bureau. a
required to be considered as emanating fro
and to have the same force aud effect as
directly authorized or issued by the Secreta
OF the Navy.
That is the pos ition in which the spe
ifcations place him--that is, as exerci
ing certain power as the chief of IL
bureau of provisions and clothing n
original, not independent, cut
power emanating- from the Sc
retary of the Navy. That b
ing so, he was required by law to re
feet simply the opinions and judgmen
of the Secretary Of the Navy; and Il
question is whether some territory
liability can be surve, cd off and locat
in this transaction which will
law justify some punishment
General Smith when his a
tions are conceded to have violated
statute, TO have violated no rule Of I
department, to have violated no ord
of his superior officer. Can man
guilty, and call down upon hims
the punishment of court martial, VIII
acting in subordinate capacity, with
law violated, no rules of procedure Vi
lated, and no order of his superior vi
lated A? If guilt can be placed upon SUI
foundation. it is a new discovery. III
is absolutely pioneer case in that !
spect. There is not a precedent for
cited. There is rot an authority civ
for any such Judgment or proceeding.
say punishment under such circumsIanf
is repugnant TO the spirit OF our 10
it is repuguant to the intelligence OF u
country; is repugnant to the consciene