Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-11-05

and men respectively owe to each other
should be strictly and fully discharged. To
a certain extent they are released from the
operations OF civil law il that portion OF the
country in which their active operations
may lie. 1t is upon this principle that GEN.
ersl Grant, if he ordered the burning OF
building in Virginia during the war, could
not, under the law, be convicted OF arson
General Lee. if he had ordered a house to be
burned during active operations in Pennsyl-
vania, would not have been liable to local
laws where this burning took place; because
1t was an actual state of conflict.
These same principles exactly apply to
the officers and men who were encamped at
Homestead. The action of the Governor In
calling them out for the purpose of suppress
ing riots, the condition Of affairs (Which was
known by these defendants here, shown to
have been known to the officers and men)
surrounding them, made them subject to
the same general principles of law by which
an army in actual war is governed.
Must Consider Their Motives.
The only difference las was correctly
stated by the learned counsel for the COM
mon wealth) which arises out of the differ
ences in surroundings is in this: The jury
must consider all the facts and circum-
stances surrounding the parties at the time
in determining whether or not the officer Or
dering the punishment was actuated by an
improper motive. No acts of military Of
hcers or tribunals within the scope OF their
jurisdiction can be revised or punished
criminally by court OF common law, but
Tor q malicious exercise by military officer
OF law ul authority, or for acts OF 4 millt ary
officer in excess 0r authority toward those
in the military service where civil laws are
in 1ull force, he may he called upon to
answer. Where his acts go beyond his
Jurisdiction, or are attended with clrcun-
stances of excessive severity arising from
i'll will or a depraved disposition or vindic-
tive feeling, he can claim no exemption.
The case, therefore, turns upon the
motives which induced the inf1ictlon OF the
punishment And this is a question for the
jury, to be determined by them upon the
whole testimony. The rule OF law by "htch
you must be governed i'll making up your
verdict is contained in single propositions
it is this: Ii you believe from the whole tes-
timony that the defendants in all the acts
complained OF were actuated alone by an up
right intention to maintain the dlSclpllne OF
their command and the interests OF the
service in which they we're engaged. then
your verdict must be not guilty.
Must Find a Vindictiye Feeling.
If, having found that the punishment OF
the prosecutor was in any manner increased
or aggravated by malice or a vindictiye feel
ing toward him on the part of the officers, or
by disposition to oppress him, then your
verdics should be gailty. And in deciding
the question you are to take into considera-
the place where the transactions happened,
the condition of the troops under the COM
maud of the officers, and the spirit and tenn
per OF the enlisted men, MS the officers under-
stood them to be, the spirit and temper of
the inha Ditants Dy which the command was
surrounded, and tho nature and character OF
the communication between those inhabi-
tants and the troops, and how far the con-
duct and example OF the prosecutor might,
lii the judo lnent OF the defendants, be cal
cuated 10 embarrass or frustrate the objects
for which the troops had been called into
service, unless he, the prosecutor, was re-
duceu To complete obedience.
You will also consider tne manner in
which the prosecutor was punished,
whether not care was taken that he
mi ht not suffer severe injury, whether the
surgeons were ordered TO be present and
were there to supervise the treatment and
that he suffered no unnecessary injury.
The relations necessarily existing be-
tween the officers Ol command and their
suDordinates re Ider iC absolutely necessary
10 the proper control of all military oper-
ationS that the interiors shall obey all COM
lnands issued by 4 superior officer within
the scope OF his authority. 1t it were not
So, an army would speedily become dsor-
ganized mob, and tne National Guard of
the State, instead of being a protection and
the right arm oI the states power to ad-
minister its own laws, would become a
threat to public order, and might speedily
pecone rabDle dang erouS to the puDIlc
welfare.
Not Responsible for the Punishment
AS to the drumming out of camp, ETC.. the
evidence is that the punishment was
ordered by General Snowden, the com
mander of the division. Ii there was any
evidence that the defendants had, by any
misrepresentation or improper influence,
procured the issuance of this order, or if
there was any evidence that the order was
issued by the commanding officer for ma
licious or improper purpose, and that these
defendants had 4 corrupt knowledge or that
purpose and willingly acquiesced in and
Iurtuered it, then it would be your duty 10
render a verdict of guilty But the evidence
in this case is that these officers simply re-
ported the IactS to their superior.
1r there were evidence that in the carry
ing out OF the orders Of their perior they
lau resorted to unnecessary violence or
cruelty, then it ould be proper for the jury
to convict upon Indictment which charges
assault and battery. But there is no evil
dence OF that character in this case, and,
there !oIc, if The order WAS within the scope
oil the authority OF General Snowden and
the defendants simply obeyed it, there can
he no conviction upon this Indictment.
Upon this point we say to you that the
order was within the scope of the auth ority
Of the commanding officer, and that your
verdict must be not guilty as to both the
defendants. The same principle must
necessarily lead to q verdict OF not guilty
10 the defendant, Surgeon William S.
Grimm.
Put Yourself in Their Place.
Now, gentlemen, put yourself in the place
of the officers. In obedience to the orders
issued, within the line of his authority, and
with perfect propriety by the Governor of
the Commonwealth, who was the COM
mander in chief of the forces to which this
colonel belonged, he had assembled with his
troops Tor the purpose OF purring down riots
or Cusillng insurrection. He knew that a
town within the immediate vicinity in which
those troops were encamped was then, or
nul Il lnN NJ
body Of men who recognized no legal su-
per4ors. He knew that many had been
lillcd as result of the disturbed social re-
l4tions OF that city: he knew that II. c. Frick
was Chairman of large manufacturing COM
pany; that that manufacturing company
Lad had difficulties with its men; anu you
rave nothinS to do with the question of
whether the manufacturing company was in
the wrong or the men who lad been their
employees.
The evidence shows that they were in q
community in which riots and homicides
had disturbed the public order: that a town
containing many thousands of people was
under the control of an unauthorized or
gam tion which had set aside the civil Off
ccIs and arrogated to themselves the right
TO Geter!nine who should or who should not
remain IN the Town: to exercise censorship
over teiegrams, and do any and all things
that tney themselves thought proper.
These Iac.s were known to the officers, and
ii Is important that they should be borne in
mind by the jury in determining what the
motives may nave been which influenced
these defendants.
Simply EeaIing W ith the Facts.
You simply deal with the state of facts as
they were then known to tine officer with re-
gard to the condition growing out of this
trouble. He knew that this man, who was
one of the parties to this very trouble, was
at least reported to have been killed; he
knew that his superiors had COM
manded him to exercise great eau
tion and TO be on the alert: he