St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-02-19
A sol.DIEE' Ftksr DUTY.
Obedience in the wItd Case-COm-
ments of an ex-SOIdier.

Obedience in the WIid Case-COm-
ments of an ex-SOIdier.
To the Editor of the Globe.
In reference to the case Of Private d.
P. Wild, Eighth cavalry, whose SEN
rence and the approval thereof by the
department commander are criticised in
the GLOBE of the 10th inst, 1 beg to
submit the following: Mr.. Wild was
accused of diSobeying the orders of his
superior officer. We must remember
that the first duty of the soldier is
obedience to orders. He was convicted
by court martial and sentenced accord
ingly. His tWild's) excuse for not
Obeying these orders was that the serv-
ice required by them was mental; that
is. service for the personal benefit of
the officer giving the order alone. Was
this the case? The officer was occupy
ing buildings belonging to the United
States, and IL is fair to suppose that
they should be kept in repair by the
United States. As | understand the
matter. the soldier was ordered to help
the officer in placing certain piece OF
canvas in position on one OF these
buildings. ami which service required
! two persons, in this case the officer ID
enlisted man. to perform conveniently.
The building belonging to the United
States, that the services required was
nut mental is all evident fact. and there
fore the order was legal. and the re-
fuSal to obey such orders was insubor-
dination of the groSSeSG kind. If Pri-
vate Wild had, when he entered the
service, taken pains to learn the duties
required of soldier, and then cheer
fully endeavOred to perform them. his
soldier life would have terminated in a
much more satisfactory manner both
to himself and his officers but he pitted
his legal knowledge of the duties re-
Qured of him against the knowledge of
the men who tried him-men who
had probably spent the greater part of
their lives sin studying their profession
and, as result, he found out that
he had still a great deal to
learn. The officer who reviewed
the court-martiaI proceedings and
approved the findings and sentence is a
gentleman who has had the advantage
of both thorough legal as we'll as mill
tary training; and, what is more to his
credit, he is esteemed throughout the
service as strictly impartial man,
earnest in his eDdeavOr to perform the
duties of his responsible Office so as to
protect not only the interests of the
government he serves, but also the in
terests of both officers and enlisted men
serving under him. That such man
should, with all the facts and circum-
stances before him in the proceedings
of the court martial in que ton and
otherwise, have approved of an Illegal
and unjust sentence, is not to be be-
lieved by unprejudiced persons. In re-
gard to what is said in the issue of your
paper before mentioned about the snob-
bishness of West Point officers, can
only speak from my own personal OBJ
servation during service in the army
as all enlisted man for over thirteen
years; and my experience with the off,
GERS that graduated from West Point
and all others is that as rule they are
gentlemen in every sense. and if there
are exceptions they only prove the rule.
''FAIR PLAY For ALL"