The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1892-11-19
MIR, DANFORTH'S STATEMENT.
4 STRONG ARGUMENT AGAINST the
ItffiOkIYt or 7HE LINZ.

"Na>nt Custom" M"-t Mean the Custom Of
Tos,iay, Not T,nt Ut rwcnty Years AGO
lieu AcHcrUni Was Not Authorik
to 1nrrs ate isis GGnci.
There was n considerable gathering OF both
line and stall officers in the court martial
room ut the Navy Yard yesterday to hear Law
yer W. II. Stayton's ling up OF the defence
in the trial OF Assistant Engineer George W.
panforth Of tho Philadelphia. 1t was expected
Mr.. Stayton would make n telling argument in
behalf OF tho STAFF against the supreme au-
thority given to the line by ancient naval GUS
tom This expectation was not disappointed
Mr.. Stayton read his statement. which. accord
ing to the custom of courts martial. was so
plrascd us to arpcar to come from tho ne
cused.
Mr.. Stayton cyan by rcciting the story OF
the 6 Use as II appcare TO tho accused. OF his
refusal to ALLOW the mastor-at arms to take
tho prisoner Dunlop from tho engine room.
he said:
II am still OF opinion that my action in
speaking To the mastor-atarms was proper
While the taking of Dunlop on that aricular
! occasion would probably have caused nothing
morcthnn Temporary incon, oniencc. yet the
principle ought to be established that the
engineer of the watch shall lie notified when
me- are Ia ken from work in the do!attmont
rs otherwise an IMPORTANT man. az Na!Ee
tender or water tender. might he taken with.
out MOI" and hc absent ut critical moment
SO that disastrous consequences would follow"
He sent bunlon On dock Then the order
came torrp"r: on deck himself. Oh his refusal
81 did not feel and do not feel now, that in
any proper sen,,s disoteyedi or Wiliuiy re-.
fused to obey. the orders OF tho oNrcr ol inc
deck. There wa. no ease Of a disnl oil ont or
wiiful spirit in the matter My duty seemed
and to notify the officer OF tho duck ms to the
circumstances. | did not Therefore. retus. ~
obey hs order. but simply n1;,ilrd nm th"t
7" shortly ai,crward received from tho eN;
ecu i've officer an order to report on deck. !
had n" hesitation in Going.,nS ieH 'hat my
The Court having made the point during tho
r" tina. whrs NO 81 me HerTr.
prevail. the accused argued
A custom Of the service must he under
stood to mean custom OF to-day, not the
custom OF fifty or even Of twenty >"nrs age. In
mhtterus progressive us steam enEneerinG;
can an SEQ "". that n might been entirely proper
years ny for the engineer OF he watch to have
left his station which wa. then f" l,i,, a.
affairs / can well see how tho custom of
his leaving upon the request ofthc officer t The
SO changed that t" take the engineer OF tho
watch from his station il a serious ana I'M
nortant matte , When me vital aI mas
of the ship. hut a large ,propotion OF tho SNIP $
company In the old days. to have taken an
engineer out of the engin" room would have
Had Had gone ,,c on nd deck when Mr. Ackcrman sent
for me- and when was assigning men t",uty.
| would have INTERRUPTED the work OF very
material percentage Of tho ships WORKING
force"
lie made strong point Of the motive OF Mr.
| Alderman in sending Tor hi m. This he CON
-i>ed to be to inquire into his refusal to come
| on deck. He said: Il Respectfully submit
| that Mr.. Alderman has no right t" investigate
! q report Of an alleged offence aEn!nst me or
any other officer II n report is made against
| me- or II | commit an offence. 1t may be his
duty tn refer it to tho executive officer or to tho
| Cartaip but ii can mover become his duty to
| investigate my conduct. When he assumes
| to do 81 lie steps clearly beyond til" hound 81
| his authority. To or Ter me to come on deck
| to have my conduc! Investigated is unlawful
| l think | :isk nothing in saying that If an
| officer OF he deck should send to any member
| Of this court IN order to como on dock to rer-
nit thu otI!rrr of the deck to inves'iGat" u te-
port made by the ma, al; at ar ms such mem
Der would Immediately decline to obey the
order as unlawful ard II trcSpnSs upon the
d gnitv of hi- position"
In reply. tho .iu.l:: Advocate said that the
case was u very simple one 70 decide. The
accused was charged with diSotclience of
orders. and admitted the charge. Tho rcEu
Iations stated explicitly that the officer Of the
deck represented tn. commanding ot1'cer
Nothing can excuse n subordinate officer in
the dis obedience Of orders but II physical inn
possibility to otey them. Tho Inferior can
not he permitted to raise question OF pro-
priety.
sent to Washington to-day.