St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-02-15
WHICH WAS WORSE :?
Two Cases of Court Martial in
the Local Army Depart
ment, t
Which May Throw Light on a
Much-Mooted Cues
ton.
Current City Matters Dis
eussed by the Commit
tee on Streets. /
Young Thieves Rounded Up
and the Booty Brought
Back.

For the past six months there has
been, in army and military circles. as
we'll as outside, considerable discussion
of the causes of so many assertions from
the regular army. Outside of the army
itself, it has been freely charged and
the general belief that the rough and
uncalled-ior treatment of private sol
diers by the line officers was the chief
cause. At the recent state militia con-
yenti0n in st. Paul, the assertion was
made. however, that the number of
these assertions was largely eXagger-
ated, and that the men so deserving were
the offscourlngs of the army, which was
really the better off for their absence.
While this may be true, the fact re-
mains that there are many assertions
and that inhuman treatment is popu-
larly ascribed as the cause. Fort Smell
ling and the Jefferson barracks are most
frequently cited as the scenes of this bad
treatment, and the highest military Of
ficer OF the state is quoted as deprecat-
ing the treatment accorded private
soldiers at Fort Smelling.
In this connection. the report of the
last general court martial sitting in the
department of Dakota is quite interest
ing. Two private soldiers were tried
and convicted, and the sentences were
approved by Gen. Ruger, commanding
the department. The first was con-
victed of sleeping at his post, and the
second of refusing to do mental work
for lieutenant. The first soldier re-
ceived a comparatively light sentence,
for he had merely slept at his sentry
post; while the second, convicted of the
heinous offense of refusing to do duty
about lieutenantS back yard, received
the SevereSt sentence known to times of
peace, and was left with an ineffaceable
stain upon his character.
The first court martial sat at Fort
Custer, with Maj. Charles D. Veille,
First cavalry. presiding. Private Mar
tin Flanagan. of Troop ID, was the
culprit, and pleaded guilty of the charge
of violating the thirty-ninth article of
war. and that he slept upon post Dec.
6, 1889. He was sentenced ito forfeit
to the United States so per month of
his pay for the period of six months, and
TO be confined at hard labor under
charge of the post guard for the same
period" 1t may be added that the pun
ishment for this offense in time of war
is death.
The second case was heard at Fort
Yates, with Capt. Edward G.. Fechet,
Eighth cavalry. presiding. Private
Dell p. Wild was tried on a double
charge growing out of one OffenSe. The
official report says:
Charge I.-''Conduct prejudicial to good
order and military discipline"
Specifcation-"That Private Dell P. Wild,
troop F, Eighth cavalry, having been ordered
by First Sergeant William Won Hartuag,
troop F, Eighth cavalry, III the execution of
his office TO carry a piece of canvas (con-
demued canvass to the quarters of Second
Lieut.. NJ. f. Steele, Eighth cavalry, and to
wait there until be Qieut. Steele) came did
disobey said order by leaving and returning
to his troop barrack before Lieut. Steele came
TO his quarters This at Fort Yates, 5. D.,
Oct. "a. lHS9."
Charge Disobedience of orders, in
violation of the Twenty-first Article OF War"
Specihcation-''That Private Dell P. Wild,
troop F, E ,ghth cavalry, having been ordered
by his superior officer. Second Lieut.. NJ. T.
Steele. Eighth cavalry, in the execution of
his Office, to assist him in placing piece
of canvas upon back shed of his said Lieut..
Steele's quarters. did, in disrespectful, sui
len and,insolent tone and manner, refuse to
obey said order. This at Fort Yates, S. D.,
Oct. "a. 1889"
Private Wild pleaded not guilty, but
was convicted. The probability is that
he remarked to the sergeant that he
was sworn to serve the United States as
a soldier, not TO work in Lieut.. Steele'S
Ddth ydIus IOl SIONlOuo hS
was dishonOrably discharged from the
service. branded as convict, his pay
and allowances forfeited, and ordered
confined at hard labor for one year in
the military prison at Fort Smelling.
Ali of this is doubtless in strict con-
fOrmity with military rule and disci-
pline, but the cases have attracted some
attention, and they require just this eX-
PLANTATION to convince the general pub
lie that the stories Of the snobbish treat
ment accorded private soldiers by their
officers are utterly untrue. People
must needs be convinced. There should
be no more of that popular impression
that the gallant officers graduated from
West Point are merely snobbish dam
dies and treat enlisted men like dogs.
As long as the impression is permitted
to exist it is small wonder that the
army is the last resort Of the unem-
ployed.