Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1892-10-13
NO NEED OF A COURT
COLONEL JoNEs's PETITION AGAINST
COLONEL srERN DENIED.
The Adjstans.osperars Letter Setting
Forth thc Reasons why the Military
Trial In Not ordered.

The application Of Colonel Henry G.
Jones'. commandant of the First Virginia
Regiment. for court-martial against
Colonel 10 Lane Stern. the inspector-Gen-
eral. has been considered by the Governor
and tho request refused.
Adjutant-Geheral Mcdonald, by direc-
ton Of his Exceilcncy. has addressed to
Colonel Jones lengthy letter. setting forth
the reasons why the demand was not
granted. The paper frst states that the
charges aud specifications against Colonel
Stern were referred 70 the Judge-Adyo-
cate-f3eneral. Colonel Meade Haskins. who
submitted an opinion IN which he ADVISED
that the court-nartial should not be
ordered. From this opinion the following
conclusions result: That courtmartiai
not being matter. of right Is entirely
power TO convene or not, and will never
be ordered unless the act charged. II
proven. would constitute al offence over
which q court-martisl has jurisdiction.
THE CHARGES AND sprcIRIcArIoSs.
The first charge against Colonel Stern
alleged that he publicly reproacbed Colo
mel Jones, and the specifications undertook
10 bring tie charge within tho provisions
of the 25tb Article OF War, which iorbids an
officers using "reproachful or provoking
speeches or gestures to another.
The facts set forth IN the printed paper
furnished by Colonel Jonesand purporting
10 be o stenographic account OF the occur
renee, the Acknowledgement says, shows
that the language complained OF Ods hot
addressed TO Colonel Jones. but was used IN
reply TO question from the chairman OF
Joint committee Of the Legislature.
The object Of Article Is IS to prevent
- 1ot.x G4n
diers likely 10 result from offensive IAN
cuage, and tho means of prevention pro-
yided Is tho placing of tho offending party
under arrest To constitute the obence
contemplated the language must be OF
character calculated to produce the re-
suits to be guarded against. aud 1t must DO
used to the party offended;
raj Mcdonald continues. neither OF these
conditions is met. The language was not
addressed to Colonel Jones and could not
be construed as liable TO cause breach OF
the peace. Ii WAS the mere expression OF
an opinion from military standpoint not
eratuitously offered but evoked by aques-
lion from an authorized source-an opln-
ion as TO which military men might diner
and in which the views OF either SIDE
might be given without just grounds Tor
complaint By any one.
WOULD HAVE NO JURISDICTION.
but, granting that the offence guarded
against By Article rs was committed
General Mcdonald continues, "A court
martial has no jurisdiction IN the case; as
the language of the article itself prescribes
another procedure"
decided under the rulings and decisions OF
the article, and states that 1t merely au:
thorizes the taking Of certain measures OF
prevention or restraint by commanding
oficers-measures preventive OF serious
disorders.
at is therefore apparent that there IS no
grounds for court-martial on the Drst
charge Of Colonel jones.
on THE GOVERNORS STAFF.
THE second charge is that Colonel
Stern on the same occasion made claim to
official position not warranted by law
that he was on the Governors staff.
From the opinion of the Judge-Advo-
cate.(Ieneral, and consideration of the
statute creating the Office Of Assistant In
spector-General il IS apparent that. while
that officer occupies a dual stall relation,
he is primarily. and in paramount sense,
"or the Governors staff" Section Sl5 of
the Code. in defining his duties. which it
is needless to say are those of a stan OFF,
Ger, provides in six separate SEN
fences that he shall perform those
duties under the authority and orders
of the Commander in Chief, and 1t
is only when not so employed that
the law. assigning him secondary and
contingent position. says he shall be at
tached to the staff of the senior officer OF
volunteers, and subject to his orders, when
not acting under the orders Of the Com
mander-ln-C Chief" The JUDGE Advocate
General expresses the opinion, in which
the Commander-in-Ch concurs, that
Colonel Stern was fully justified in con-
sidering himself as ION the Governors
staff" and, being so justified, he had a
right to claim that position before the
Joint committee of the Legislature, if 1t
so pleased him.
ALSO THE EXECUTIVES VIEWS.
I'm stating his objections to the bill, the
merits of which were being considered by
the committee, he but expressed views
which the Commander n-Chief enter
tanned, as he subsequently stated TO sub
committee that called on him for an ex-
preston of his views. The joint commit
tee of the Legislature concurred IN the OBJ
jections, as all the Objectionable provisions
of the measure were stricken out.
Entertaining these views, the Com
mander-in- Chief is of the opinion that the
charges preferred by Colonel Jones against
Colonel Stern do not justify court
martial, and 30 none is ordered"