The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1889-07-09


the oath. Col. A. W. Bradbury appeared a:
counsel for Col Lynch. Col Lynch's state
ment was read and placed on record.
Col. Lynch's Statement.
The respondent, John j. Lynch, colone
commanding First Regiment. M. v. M.
makes the following answer to the charge!
preferred against him and respectfully re
quests that it may be made part of the rec.
ord without prejudice to any oral testimoay y
that he, the respondent, may see fit to offel
bearing upon whatever evidence may bt
adduced against him.
First-For answer to the first charge re
spon1ent says: That in compliance with or
ders from the brigade commander he direct
ment, to procure the necessary implements
and dig sink that Quartermaster Barrows
used due diligence to procure pickels and
shovels from Quartermaster. General Gal
lagher but was unable to obtain any. These
implements, few in number, were not deliv-
and then to the Second Regiment; so that il
was impossible to dig sink for the First
Regiment, they using the one sink in CON-
mon with the Second Regiment.
Second-For answer to the second charge
respondent says: That he was absent but
once when he stepped out to witness the re
ception Of Mr.. Blaine on his return. from
Europe and on another occasion when he re-
ported in person to Gen. Mitchell, command
ing brigade and received permission from
hin: to SO absent himself; and further that
said charge is barred by limitation.
Thrd-For answer to the third charge re-
spondent says: That in compliance with the
orders of the brigade commander he sent the
orders for o'clock target drill to the several
company commanders and has their receipts
therefor endorsed upon said orders. That it
was never reported to him that said orders
were not fully complied with
FOurth-FOr answer to the fourth charge
respondent says: That his failure to place
his command at dress parade when ordered
by the assistant adjutant general, was pure
ly accidental and not an Intentional diSobe-
dience of orders, and so far as his having
made an unmilitary, ungentlemanly and in
Sulting reply before his command to the as
slstant adjutant general when ordered by
him to place his command as directed and
that he, the respondent, then turned his
back upon him is concerned, respondent de.
nies that any such thing took place, and
says If his manner indicated anything of the
kind it may have been unfortunate but GER
tainly was unintentional; and as no notice
of it was taken at the time the respondent is
greatly surprised that so gross a charge is
brought against him after the lapse of nearly
a year.
Fifth-For answer to the fifth charge, re-
spendent says, that neither during the en-
campment of 1888, nor at any other time
during his life, did he ever take drop of in
cept under the direction of a physician or
military surgeon; that he was under the
treatment of the surgeon during the encamp-
ment of 1888, as will appear in evidence, and
respondent denies that Dy reason of the
free use of stimulants he was unfit for any
III 1f <7.xfxr IN IL,
or that he was wilfully guilty of insubordl-
nation and conduct prejudicial to the service
but, on the contrary. he performed every
tour of duty, even when he might well have
been excused by reason OF sickness.
Sixth-For answer to the sixth charge, re-
Spondent admits that the returns required
by sections 63 to &c. both inclusive, of chap.
225 Public Laws of 1880. were not made to
brigade headquarters during the months of
December, 1888, and April, 1889, and
by way of explanation says: that
although due diligence was used
by the respondent and frequent demands as
were made upon company commanders 1ol
these returns they were slow in coming in
and on. their receipt from time to time were
forwarded to the adjutant general for his in
formation. 1t was the intention of the re-
sp0ndent to make his consolidated report to
brigade headuuarterS as soon as all the COM
pany returns were received by him. And as
to the second paragraph of the sixth charge
respondent says the adjutant Of his regiment
was directed to replO to the communications
marked A., b., Z. and D., from brigade head
quarters and to explain the reasons for the de-
lay In making returns, and he denies any in
tention to disregard Or treat with contempt
any law or regulations of the service or any or
ders received by him. And further that he did
visit and inspect the armores of each com
pany of the first regiment though he never
received any orders so to do, but did it vol
for nd for flaaf ftac
vice, securing no compensation therefore as
he would have had he been acting under or
ders.
Seventh-The seventh charge contains
nothing to which answer can be made. 1t
merely transmits and explains the brigade
inspectors report upon the encampment of
1888. As the report is not incorporated in
the charges the respondent must reply there
to when it is produced before this court.
Eighth--The respondent does not think
that the eighth charge requires any answer,
but submits that the deduction that since he
failed to ask for court of inquiry he ad-
mits the statements of the inspectors re-
port, which he had never seen Is illogical,
unfair and improper. A court of inquiry
was asked for by the respondent as soon as
the Inspectors report was made known to
him, and that was as soon as he could in
decency and with due regard for military
usuage ask for 1t.
Assistant AdJutant General Lunt.
Gen. Mitchell opened the case against Col
Lynch. AT his request Assistant Adjutant
General Lunt read from general orders the
various portions whose provisions Col
Lynch is charged with disregardiDg. Counsel
for Col. Lynch objected to reading some OF
to the charges. Gen. Harper, chairman OF
the board, ruled that the evidence must be
confined to the charges. Major Lunt testi-
fed that he sent an order relative to report
ing for target practice on the night of the
18th. The next day Col. Harrington in
formed him the order was not obeyed. He
did not know of any. drill whatever by the
First Regiment that day. Failure
in this respect caused much talk
at brigade headquarters. He related
the difficulty between himself and Col
Lynch relative to the position of the First
Regm ent in the parade. The positions of
both regiments and the battery had been
determined and markers stationed. Col.
Lynch. Lynch. the witness said, persisted in
where the. right should have been.
His attention was called to this
error. Major Lunt stated that he himself
twice visited Col. Lynch's headquarters and
spoken to him about it. He visited Col.
Lynch short time before the last dress
parade and called special attention to this
point. When he came on the field, Col.
Lynch again formed his line wrong. 81
told him his command was in the wrong
place, with the left where the right should be
and ordered him to change the position of
his line," said Major Lunt. HE turned
from me and said, Then right gets left and
did not obey my order. rode back to Gen.
Mitchell and informed him that Col Lynch
roborated the charges of Gen. Mitchell, al
leging negligence by Col. Lynch in making
reports and stated that he had heard consid-
cradle criticism at brigade headquarters of
the way Col. Lynch performed escort duty
on Governors day.
MaJor Plalsted.
Major Plaisted testified that he acted as
inspector during the encampment of 1885,
Col. Bradbury objected to the introduction OF
Major Plaisted's report, claiming that 1t had
never been officially called to Col. Lynch's
attention.
The board decided that such portions as
referred to the First Regiment should be
read. Major Plaisted testified that he had
visited the camp of the First Regiment and
found that no sink was dug. Gen. Mitchell
sent him to COL Lynch with peremptory or
ders to have sink dug. The orders were
not obeyed. He had seen Col. Lynch fail tC
obey the orders of Major Lunt on the field
and heard his insulting reply. he saw Col
Lynch turn his back on Major Lunt. he
said the escort duty by the First Regiment