Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-11-02
RULES OF THE ARMY
We're the Authority for the
Punishment of Private
Iams, According to
COL. HAWKINS TESTIMONY.
He Relates Several Similar Cases in
the Regular Service.
LIEUT.. COL. STREATOR'S STORY.
It Differs Little From That Told BY the
Prosecuting Witness
LIEUT.. COL. STREATOR'S STORY.
A SPEEDY END OF THE CASE EXPECTED

ment and the events which led up to it.
Colonel Gray, as deputy sheriff, contributed
another chapter, picturing the Homestead
Pattison to send the troops to the scene.
OF the last and the most interesting chap
ter Colonel Hawkins was the author and it
dealt with his share in the punishment Of
Iams, q vivid account of the alarming crisis
brought about by the attempt to kill Mr..
Frick and all the veteran soldier knew
about the punishments in vogue in the
Federal army during the War Of the Rebel
lion. Colonel Hawkins war stories in this
connection were as entertaining, if grue-
some, as any that have been told
at camp fires Judge Porter's contribution
was more important than at any previous
session of the court, for he practically ruled
that the main issue of the case had mar
rowed down to this: Were the defendants
actuated by proper motives in administer
ing the punishment to 1ams?
May Throw the Case Out Of Court.
Taking the courts several rulings yester-
day it is fair to draw the inference that
Judge Porter is satisfied that the spunish-
ment inflicted was in accordance with the
United States Army regulations, under
which, generally applied, the act organic
ing the National Guard directs that body
shall be when in active service. In conse-
quence of these rulings the probability that
Judge Porter will throw the case out of
court to-day, or so instruct the jury on the
law that under the evidence they will not
be able to convict, was freely discussed
when the session ended.
The proceedings began yesterday with
the imposition of a fine of IS upon
W. j. Cooper, the youth who had ap-
plauded in court the afternoon before. The
prosecution called two unimportsnt wit
nesses and then rested. Senator Rob bins
opened for the defense, which the line of
cross-examination had previously revealed
pretty fully. Mr.. Robbins proposed to
prove that the punishment of Iams was
legal, called for by the crime, and properly
and humanely administered. The first
witness called was Colonel Gray, who re-
lated at length what he knew of the Home
stead troubles preceding the arrival of the
militia 1t was a repetition for the most
part of what Colonel Gray has told In court
before in the cases against the strikers He
showed, of course, that the condition of
occurred was critical, as it had been for
weeks previous.
Questioned the Governors Authority.
In his cross-e1amination the prosecution
raised the question of the Governors au-
thority to call out the National Guard as
distinguished from the enrolled militia.
Mr.. Iams contended that the Governor mad
exceeded his authority, and that his order
calling out the troops was no protection for
the defense in this suit. The Court over
ruled the objection and the Governors
order was admitted.
At this time the court adjourned till
o'clock, at which hour olonel Streator
took the stand. The story he told of the
whole Iams matter differed very slightly
from that told by the prosecutors wit
nesses. The new light consisted in brief in
these facts: Colonel Streator had lett the
carving out of the punishment to the regi-
mental surgeons. The purpose of the hang
in e up was to prevent repetition of mutin-
Gus conduct. DR.. Neff had reported to
wi tness that Iams had swallowed tobacco
and was sick from that, and Colonel
Streator had told the doctor to cut him
down as soon as physical injury
seemed likely to result Colonel Streator
had investigated other coincident cases of
improper comment upon the Frick assault,
and had reprimanded two men who had
withdrawn the offensive remarks. 1t came
out, also, that i'll feeling existed between
Company K and Colonel Streator, dating
from o previous encampment For this
reason the Colonel had delayed Furnishing
Iams till Captain Worley, of K Company,
returned to camp. Cross-e1amination did
not shake the witness testimony to any
extent.
Colonel Hawkins Army Experiences.
After General Wiley had testified upon a
purely technical point. Colonel Hawkins,
another of the defendants, began a two
hours sojourn in the witness box He re-
peated the narrative of how the message as
to the assault upon Mr.. Frick was received
in camp. He graphically described the
critical aspect of affairs when Iams uttered
the famous words which made all the mis-
chief, and as to the punishment he testified
that he noticed particularly that Iams' heels
alternately rested on the ground while he
Incidental to this portion of Colonel
Hawkins examination Judge Porter ruled
that all facts tending to illustrate the recti-
tude of the defendants intention in punish
ing Iams might be brought out, as the
Court believed that to be the main issue
In answer to Attorney Iams' contentious
that the Court could alone instruct the
jury as to the lawfulness of the acts, and
that Colonel Hawkins expert opinion as q
veteran soldier as TO propriety of punish
ment was therefore incompetent, Judge
Porter held that the law plainly said that
the discipline of the National Guard in
active service should conform with United
States regulations generally, and that
where q certain punishment is not for
bidden the legality of its inflction rests
upon the good faith of the officers and their
intention TO enforce discipline. These rul-
ings evidently pleased the defense.
Punishments in the Regular Army,
So Colonel Hawkins opened a chamber
of horrors, and trotted out all the blood
curdling penalties he had stored in his
memory of active service in the Union
army quarter of century ago. For
Iams' offense Colonel Hawkins said he had
seen men shot to death. hung up by the
thumbs, bucked and gagged, spread-eagled
or staked out in the sun, tied to wheels,
and otherwise tortured till they tainted.
He remembered seeing 16 men at once of
the ThiNy-ninth Indiana Infantry in the
winter of 1854 hung up by the thumbs
for continual drunkenness and disobedience.
This hanging was much more severe than
the dose Iams got because only the ball OF
the foot was allowed to rest on the ground.
The hanging-up was always controlled by q
medical officer, as in Iams' case, the conduct
- f,r-li inAN al II
fectly regular. Another instance cited by