Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1889-04-02
is MAJOR LYDECKER GUILTY?
Maj. Davis, Judge Advocate OF the Court
Martial, Argues That He Is.

MARTIAL, Argues That He Is.
| THE PROSECUTING OFFICER CONTENDS THAT THE
EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT CLEARLY PROVES
OF DUTY AS CHARGED.
The eighth session of the Lydecker court
martial, and the last as far as active operations
are concerned, was began promptly at 10 o'clock
| this morning. There were q number of ladies
present, besides several well-known military
men. The Judge advocate announced that the
record Of yesterdays proceedings, consisting
| OF the arguments of the counsel for the de-
Tense, had not yet been completed, but that he
was ready to proceed with his argument in sup
port of the prosecution of Major Lydecker. He
thereupon began to read his address, which
had been prepared and occupied thirty or
more pages of typewriter matter. The ma
| jors full, deep voice, in no wise impaired by
the severe tasks that have been imposed upon
it during the trisl seemed in perfect condition.
and his utterance was very clear.
Gov. Boutwell, was not present when the
| judge-advocate began to read, but Mr.. Swift
| and Major Lydecker sat in their corner in pa
| tient attention.
The arguments Of the defense yesterday and
the absence of any indication Of the line to be
pursued by the prosecution caused considerable
curiosity as to how Major Davis would handle
| the case. The evidence, being to some extent
fragmentary and not rebutted in any way by
| the defense, did not show anything Of a clue
| to his argument and his course was closely
| followed by both the court and the visitors.
| The major was provided with quite a bulwark
OF law books in front Of him, and as he read
| he made frequent references to the pages
marked by little slips of paper, reading his
precedents at length.
| THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION.
| ha Ind To
a reference to the question of the jurisdiction
of the court. He said that if the offense alleged
| is not an offense according to the articles of
war, or if it be one over which a court-martial
has no jurisdiction further proceedings in it
would be in error. The accused is an officer of
the army, and such amenable to trial by
legally constituted court-martial. As to the con-
stitution Of this court there is no doubt.
THE oFFENsE CHARGED
is neglect of duty to the prejudice of good
order and military discipline" The major
took up in order the separate phrases that so
| to make up the offense. Any duty may be re-
| CURED of an individual of the military estab-
| Eshment which pertains to the corps, depart
ment or arm of service to which he belongs
by Competent authority. There could be no
| doubt, that the construction of the tunnel
was, in kind, an appropriate one
| for the accused to perform; he is an officer of
| engineers, and the duty contemplated the con-
| struction of an engineering work. 1t was also
| imposed in accordance with section 1900, R. s.,
| placing the Washington aqueduct under the
! sole control of the chief of engineers. Further
| sections declare the aqueduct to be public
work for the purpose of supplying water to the
! public buildings. These statutes give the work
/ the character of military duty, and neglect
| of such duty imposed upon an engineer
officer becomes a neglect OF military duty, and,
as such, prejudicial to good order and military
| discipline.
The speaker cited the case of Runke agt, the
United States, the case of Smith agt. Whitney
and Others and then passed to the considera-
ton Of the charge and specifications. 1t was
alleged that the accused, in the execution of
his duty, did. from March IA, 1887, to Septem-
Der 80, 1887, culpably fail to exercise the proper
and necessary supervision, and by culpably
| failing to give the work the personal inspection
which it required,
ENABLED THE CONTRACTORS TO EvADE THE RE-
oU1REMENTs OF THEIR CONTRACTS.
"That the contractors did evade, or did not
fulfill the requirements Of their contracts, can
not be doubted" said Major Davis. 1.-THE first
two contracts did not, in specific terms, require
that the packing should be done by expert
stonemasons. They did require, however, a
kind Of work, namely, rubble masonry and con-
crete work, which none but expert stone
| masons were capable of doing. 1t was a class
| of work that laborers were not capable of per-
forming; and that none but reliable, expert
enced masons were capable of doing.
The testimony shows that laborers were en-
| ployed to do the work; that work worthy to be
| classed as rubble masonry was not done; that
neither the accused nor his principal assistant
! knew for nearly two years that it was being
negligently and carelessly performed, and his
| knowledge was then derived not from his
| supervisory staff, but
FROM CHARGES MADE IN THE PUBLIC PRESS"
This declaration caused little ripple of ex-
element in the courtroom, while the major
went on to consider the failure of Major Ly-
decker to personally inspect the work. He
said that the responsibility of an officer for the
| performance of a duty largely depends upon
| its character; the amount of care and personal
! supervision and inspection on his part should
be in proportion to the magnitude, novelty,
and importance Of the duty undertaken. He
| defined negligence as the failure to do what
reasonable and prudent person would ordinarily
| have done under the existing circumstances.
THE DUTY OF THE ACCUSED"
said the judge-advocate, twas to see that the
contract was executed strictly in accordance
| with its terms. The dnty was to use care. As
| to the amount and kind of care which devolved
| upon the accused in the prosecution of this
work. / think l can establish to the satisfaction
| Of this court that the requirements of the mill
| tary and the common law are identical; that
| the standards of military responsibility do not
| differ, in kind or degree, from those estab-
| lished by the common law" He cited from
shearman's Law of Negligence to prove this
point.
| MAJOR LYDEcKER RESPONSIBLE.
1.-THE commander of an army or a company"
he continued, lis held by the constant ancient
and unbroken custom of the military service,
by the requirements of military law, and by the
standard of military discipline, to precisely
similar accountability in any and every respect
The commanding oficer-the engineer-in-
| charges solely and entirely responsible for
the execution of the work; it matters not
| what that work may be, the conduct Of
a campaign, the construction Of perma-
nent work, or the construction of a tun-
mel. All power is his, and all responsibility is
his, the honors Of victory; the renown of sue
| cessful professional achievement is his; the
bitterness of defeat or the modification of pro-
fessional failure he can share with none. He
chooses his subordinates, subjecting them to
such tests of fitness as he pleases to impose; he
frames rules for their guidance and conduct;
for neglect, misconduct or incapacity he dis
| misses them il they be civilians, or brings
them to trial if they be military persons amen
| able to the articles Of war"
A POOR RULE WHICH WON'T WORK BOTH WAYS
'If those subordinates turn out well" said
| the judge-advocate, 'the credit is his; if they
| turn out to be dishonest, incompetent, or I'M
worthy the responsibility is his, and his alone
The rule of responsibility for which the accused
contends is neither just nor fair; it would have
given Lee credit for Charlottesville, but would
4 Il l. l.