The Portland daily press., 1889-07-30

AUGUSTA, July 29.-The report In the case
of Col. Lynch has been made public, and is
as follows:
HEADQUARTERS MAINE MILITIA, /
AUGUSTA, July 20, 1889.
To Edavin c. B,Tleigh, Conamander-in-C CHIEF
Of the Maine Militia:
Sir:-Agreeably to Special Order No. 80, OF
the C0mmander-in-C Chief, the undersigned
board of officers convened at headquarters
on Monday, July Sth, 1889, at o'clock p M,
to examine into the conduct of Colonel John
j: Lynch, commanding the First Regiment
of Infantry. Maine Volunteer Militia, as re.
ported to these headquarters by BrigadieI
General Henry L. Mitchell, commanding the
First Brigade, M. V. NJ, under date of June
9th, 1889. Gen. John Harper acted as chair
man, and Colonel Edwin j. Cram was chosen
as recorder. The complainant, General
Henry l.. Mitchell, and the respondent, Col
Onel John j. Lynch both being present, the
board proceeded to hear the testimony and
other evidence produced. bearing upon the
considered all the evidence, Respectfully ro-
ported as follows, viz:
As to the first charge, to wit: That the re.
spondent failed to carry out the orders OF
the brigade commander relative to the prepa.
ration of sink for his command. we find
did not willfully disobey the orders of the
brigade commander and, therefore, that he
is not guilty. While the orders / of the bri
gade commander were not fully carried Out
in this particular, the failure to do so was
not fairly s attributable to this respondent
spOndent on several occasions left his com.
mand and the camp without permission
from the brigade commander the evidence
fails to satisfy us that such was the fact, and
we, therefore, find that he is not guilty.
AS to the third charge, viz: That the re-
cnnp6anf faiIa6 IN hova hic anmpa uioo ran arf
to Colonel Harrington at the time and place
designated by the brigade commander, we
find that orders were given by Col. Lynch,
the respondent, as commanded, to the proper
officers and their endorsements taken there
fore, as read and understood" and what
understanding and not from any intention on
his part to knowingly disobey the orders of
the brigade commander. Therefore we find
he is not guilty of this charge.
As to the fourth charge, viz. That this
respondent did more than once disobey the
orders of the brigade commander, in that he
failed at dress parade to place his command
where directed by the assistant adjutant
general, who was acting under the orders of
the brigade commander, we find that the re-
spondent, by the testimony and his own ad
mission, did fail to place his command where
directed by the brigade commander, his only
excuse for so doing being that to carry out
the order and make the change in his posi-
tion, as his command was then situate, would
have given his companies an unmilitary ap-
pearance and marred the dress parade. To
us the testimony shows the noncompliance
with the order to have been neglect of duty
rather than wilful disobedience and disre-
gard of orders, for which this respondent
should have been reprimaDded at the
time As between commanding officer and
a subordinate officer, difference Of opinion
is entirely unjust able as an excuse, and in
this case furnishes no just defense. Strict
discipline in time Of peace means good
soldiers in time of war and officers, as well
as men, should be made to understand that
to be a member of the Maine militia means a
strict observance to all its rules and orders.
Soldiers look to their officers for an example.
and unless you find strict discipline among
the officers you will look In vain for it among
the men. We suggest that. prompt admins
tration of titles of service in case of neglect
of duty be urged upon all commanding Off
GERS.
AS to the fifth charge, viz: That Col
Lynch made such free use of stimulants as
to render him unfit for duty, our finding is
as follows: That during the entire week of
the time specified in the :, charges,
ai ana contppSay uudeT %as Treatment eea bg
the regimental surgeons. There is complete
and entire failure of evidence to establish
this charge and we are unanimous in our be-
lief that such condition of things did not
exist. On the contrary all the evidence
points to the fact that this. respondent not
stimulants himself, but discourages it in
others. We are glad to be able to say that
of this charge this respondent Is not guilty,
whatever appearances may have indicated.
AS to the sixth charge, viz: That returns
as required by law to be made of the differ
ment, were not seasonably made, we have to
report as follows, viz. That from all the
evidence, we are of the opinion that
the returns were unduly delayed.
True it is that the colonel of the
regiment is obliged to depend upon the Off
ports, but even then long delays and neglect
to forward them is hardly excusable. If the
officers of the different companies do not
furnish them within the time allowed by
law, and there Is no reason why they should
not, it is the duty of the colonel commanding
and proper means. We find that this neg
lect to furnish the semi-annual returns with.
in the time limited has for years been a
source OF great annoyance to the brigade
commander, and is no new thing, having
hitherto been looked upon by many as amat-
ter of form. when in fact it is a matter OF
great Importance not only by the statute re.
quirement OF our State, but Of the United
States as well,
The foregoing report covers all that is
contained in the list of charges that 1t is
necessary for US to pass upon. The evidence
at the hearing satisfies US that a more rigid
enforcement of 1.-THE laws and rules of the
service should be made. Officers and mer
should be made to understand that military
service is matter of business and not 8
pastime. We earnestly hope that
repetition of acts such as
the evidence discloses, on the part of some
of the companies of the First Regiment dur
ing the last night of the enoampment Of 1888
and In Col. Lynch's absence, will meet with
just and deserving punishment.
JOHN HARPER,
FRANK w. DANA,
FREDERIC E. BooTHBY,
EDWIN j. CRAM,
Ii A NIL IrAr